Mi 


H 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/fivepamphletsOOkittrich 


CHAUCER'S  LOLLIUS 
By  George  Lyman  Kittredge 


£-  ^      \**«\phl eTts^ 


Printed  from  the 


HARVARD^tf&DIES  IN  CLASSICAL  PHILOLOGY 
Vol.  XXVIII,  i9i7 


• 


CHAUCER'S  LOLLIUS 
By  George  Lyman  Kittbedge 

CHAUCER'S  LOLLIUS  has  long  been  regarded  by  us  critics  and 
scholars  as  a  mystery;  and,  to  confess  the  truth,  the  thing  has 
become  a  mystery  indeed  under  our  treatment.  For  in  our  discussions 
we  have  made  so  many  mistakes  about  plain  matters  of  record,  and 
have  emitted  so  many  discordant  conjectures,  that  the  whole  subject 
has  become  entangled  to  the  verge  of  distraction  and  is  now  involved 
in  a  kind  of  druidical  mist.  Let  us  try  to  extricate  ourselves  from  the 
fogbound  labyrinth,  and  to  that  end  let  us  examine  certain  obvious 
phenomena  —  for  such  there  are  —  in  an  orderly  and  logical  manner, 
in  the  light  of  reason  and  common  sense  and  of  what  we  know  of  the 
habits  of  literary  men.1 

Chaucer's  earliest  mention  of  Lollius  occurs  in  The  House  of  Fame 
(1468).  The  passage  is  very  familiar;  but  its  bearings  are  often 
overlooked,  and  anyhow  we  must  scrutinize  it  with  care  at  the  outset, 
for  it  is  quite  fundamental. 

The  poet  is  enumerating  the  statues  erected  on  pillars  in  Fame's 
hall.  First  comes  Josephus,  who,  with  the  help  of  seven  others  (un- 
named) supports  the  burden  of  Hebrew  history.  Next  stands  Statius, 
expressly  designated  as  the  author  of  the  Thebaid  and  the  Achilleis. 
Then  there  is  a  group  of  six  worthies  who  "  bear  up  "  the  fame  of  Troy: 
these  are  Homer,  Dares  and  Dictys,2  Lollius,  Guido  delle  Colonne,  and 
Geoffrey  of  Monmouth.    Then  we  have  Virgil,  who  bears  up  the  fame 

1  The  purpose  is  to  sift  and  review,  not  to  invent  new  theories,  for  almost  every 
conceivable  theory  has  already  been  propounded.  A  reference  to  Miss  Hammond's 
invaluable  bibliography  {Chaucer,  1908,  pp.  94  ff.)  will  relieve  me  of  the  duty  of 
ticketing  the  various  suggestions,  good  and  bad,  with  the  names  of  their  origina- 
tors or  adherents.  For  a  recent  discussion  see  Imelmann,  Englische  Studien,  XLV, 
406  ff. 

2  Tytus  is  probably  a  scribe's  error  for  Dytus  (i.e.  Dictys).  Robert  Braham, 
who  signs  "  The  pistle  to  the  reader  "  in  Thomas  Marshe's  edition  of  Lydgate's 
Troy  Book  (1555),  speaks  of  "  Daretus  the  Phrigyan,  and  Dytus  the  Grecyan  " 
ind  of  "  the  labores  aswel  of  Darete  as  Dyte." 

47 


M89895 


4S   . . ,     t    , ,  ,  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

of 'pious 'Aeneas;  Ovid,  who  bears  up  the  fame  of  the  god  of  love; 
Ln':;m.  who  bears  up  the  fame  of  Caesar  and  Pompey,  and  near  him 
all ' those  clerks  who  ceJ  estate  Rome  —  too  many  to  call  by  name;  then 
Claudian,  who  bears  up  the  fame  of  hell,  having  written  the  De  Raptu 
Proserpinae.    Here  Chaucer  stops  —  for 

The  halle  was  al  ful,  ywis, 

Of  hem  that  writen  olde  gestes, 

As  ben  on  trees  rokes  nestes, 

and  it  would  have  been  "  a  ful  confus  matere  "  to  finish  the  catalogue. 

Disregarding  Lollius  for  the  moment,  we  note  that  every  single 
name  in  this  enumeration  represents  a  real  person,  or  one  of  whose 
reality  Chaucer  and  his  contemporaries  had  no  doubt,  and  that  in 
every  case  the  author  is  correctly  associated  with  the  subject.  The 
inference  is  mathematically  certain:  When  Chaucer  composed  The  House 
of  Fame  he  believed  that  there  was  once  a  Lollius,  long  before  his  time,  who 
had  written  something  about  the  matter  of  Troy.  In  no  other  way  can  we 
reasonably  account  for  his  mentioning  Lollius  in  such  a  fashion  and 
in  such  company  —  along  with  Homer,  Dares,  Dictys,  Guido  delle 
Colonne,  and  Geoffrey  of  Monmouth,  precisely  as  he  mentions  Jose- 
phus  as  an  authority  on  the  wars  of  the  Jews,  Virgil  on  pious  Aeneas, 
and  Lucan  on  Caesar  and  Pompey.  There  is  no  ground  for  imagining 
that  he  felt  any  more  doubt  of  the  reality  of  Lollius  and  his  work  on 
Troy  than  he  felt  of  the  reality  of  Josephus  and  the  Bellum  Iudaicum, 
or  of  Virgil  and  the  Aeneid,  or  of  Statius  and  the  epic  of  Thebes,  or  of 
Lucan  and  the  Pharsalia.  He  was  mistaken,  no  doubt,  and  we  shall 
take  occasion  by-and-by  to  consider  the  genesis  of  his  error.  For  the 
present,  however,  we  are  concerned  merely  with  the  isolated  fact  of 
the  error  itself:  —  Chaucer  certainly  believed  that  some  Lollius  or 
other  had  written  something  of  importance  about  Troy.  No  matter 
how  he  came  to  think  so.  The  causes  of  the  opinion  have  nothing  to 
do  with  the  fact  of  the  opinion  as  a  part  of  the  res  gestae  of  the  case. 
Later,  when  Chaucer  came  to  write  the  Troilus,  he  used  Lollius  as  a 
part  of  the  fiction;  but  all  that  was  at  this  time  in  the  future.  His 
mention  of  Lollius  in  The  House  of  Fame  is  not  fiction  —  it  is  a  mis- 
take pure  and  simple. 

Now  the  mere  name  Lollius  is  not  a  blunder,  and  it  is  not  an  inven- 
tion.  Chaucer  neither  dreamed  it  nor  made  it  up,  for  it  is  an  authentic 


Chaucer's  Lollius  49 

nomen  gentile  borne  by  a  score  of  historical  Romans  who  have  left  a 
record  behind  them,1  not  to  speak  of  the  much  larger  number  whom 
oblivion  has  overwhelmed.  Chaucer  found  the  name  somewhere;  he 
did  not  manufacture  it.    This  point  should  never  be  forgotten. 

Furthermore,  wherever  it  was  that  Chaucer  found  the  name  Lollius, 
he  found  it,  of  course,  in  some  context,  not  all  alone  by  itself  on  a 
whited  wall.  Where  the  context  was,  we  do  not  know,  nor  whether  it 
was  long  or  short,  nor  what  statements  it  embodied,  nor  whether  it 
was  correctly  or  incorrectly  read  by  the  poet.  One  thing,  however, 
we  do  know:  to  wit,  that  the  context  in  which  Chaucer  discovered  the 
name  Lollius  conveyed  to  his  mind  the  distinct  impression  that  Lollius 
was  the  author  of  an  important  work  on  Troy.  In  consequence  of  this 
impression  he  mentioned  him  in  that  capacity  in  The  House  of  Fame 
along  with  Homer,  Dares,  Dictys,  Guido,  and  Geoffrey.  It  is  practi- 
cally certain  that  Chaucer  had  never  seen  this  Lollian  work,  for  it  is 
practically  certain  that  it  never  existed.  Nor  was  he  acquainted  with 
anybody  who  had  ever  seen  it.  Undoubtedly  he  supposed  that  it  was 
lost  beyond  recovery.  So  much  for  the  first  stage  of  the  Lollius  ques- 
tion. 

The  next  step  brings  us  to  Chaucer's  Troilus.2  When  Chaucer  came 
to  write  this  novel,  he  wished  —  as  all  writers  of  fiction  did,  and  do 
still  —  to  lend  his  work  an  air  of  truth  and  authenticity.  A  ready  and 
familiar  device  was,  and  still  is,  to  appeal  to  some  source  that  might 
be  accepted  as  authoritative.  Benoit  and  Boccaccio  would  not 
answer,  for  the  conditions  of  the  problem  required  an  ancient  (or  at 
least  an  antique)  personage,  and  preferably  one  who  had  written  in  a 
learned  language.  Homer  was  manifestly  out  of  the  question.  Dares, 
Dictys,  and  Geoffrey  were  likewise  unavailable,  for  their  works  were 
current,  and  notoriously  did  not  contain  any  such  story  as  that  which 
Chaucer  meant  to  tell.  Guido's  name  might  perhaps  have  been  used 
at  a  pinch;  but  he  also  was  well-known  and  current,  and  except  at  a 
pinch  indeed,  his  dry,  compendious,  and  unsympathetic  account  of 
the  love  affair  could  not  be  cited  as  the  source  of  Chaucer's  warm  and 
detailed  narrative.    For  it  was  not  only  facts  that  Chaucer  wished  to 

1  Von  Rohden  and  Dessau,  Prosopographia  Imperii  Romani,  II,  295  ff. 

2  I  postulate  that  The  House  of  Fame  was  written  before  the  Troilus.  See  the 
argument  in  The  Date  of  Chaucer's  Troilus,  pp.  53-60. 


50  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

ascribe  to  his  auctor,  but  feelings,  since  he  himself,  so  he  tells  us,  is  an 
outsider  in  matters  of  love: 

Of  no  sentement  I  this  endite, 
But  out  of  Latin  in  my  tonge  it  write  (ii,  13-14). 

And,  in  fact,  there  was  no  pinch  at  all.  For  Lollius  was  at  hand,  a 
venerable  and  veritable  Latin  name,  and  his  vanished  history,  just 
because  it  had  vanished,  was  precisely  the  stalking-horse  that  the 
fiction  needed.  Hence,  as  a  part  of  that  fiction,  Chaucer  credited  his 
material  en  bloc  to  Lollius,  and  professed,  with  a  light  heart,  to  be 
merely  a  translator  from  the  Latin.1 

In  furtherance  of  his  general  fiction  as  to  source,  and  with  the  same 
purpose  of  lending  his  work  an  air  of  truth  and  vividness  and  authen- 
ticity, Chaucer  added  a  multitude  of  classical  touches  that  are  wanting 
in  the  Filostrato.2   A  striking  instance  of  this  attempt  to  give  the  tale 

1  Troilus,  ii,  14.  The  Troilus  is  also  called  a  translation  in  the  Prologue  to  the 
Legend  (A  250,  264,  341,  350,  B  324,  370),  and  Chaucer  speaks  of  it,  when  pleading 
his  own  cause,  as  reproducing  "  what-so  myn  auctour  mente  "  (A  460,  B  470). 
Tyrwhitt's  fancy  of  taking  Latin  in  the  sense  of  latino  volgare,  "  Italian  "  (note  to 
Parson's  Tale,  §104;  cf.  Warton,  History  of  English  Poetry,  addition  to  I,  385,  in 
vol.  IT,  1778)  was  clever  and  learned,  as  usual,  but  it  cannot  be  entertained.  For 
nothing  can  be  clearer  than  that  Chaucer  intended  (as  part  of  his  fiction)  to  have 
his  readers  understand  that  he  was  translating  from  Latin,  not  from  some  vernacu- 
lar idiom.  Boccaccio,  to  be  sure,  speaks  of  the  Teseide  as  written  in  "  latino  vol- 
gare "  (in  the  prefatory  letter)  and  Chaucer  had  doubtless  read  the  passage,  but 
that  is  no  reason  for  imagining  that  Chaucer  felt  at  liberty  to  use  the  English  word 
Latin  (without  "  vulgar  ")  for  a  modern  Italian  dialect  ("  mio  fiorentino  idioma  " 
are  Boccaccio's  words  in  the  proem  to  the  Filostrato) .  A  word  in  any  context  means, 
I  take  it,  what  it  is  meant  to  mean  by  the  writer  and  what  it  is  sure  to  be  understood 
to  mean  by  the  reader.  When  Chaucer  wrote  "  out  of  Latin  in  my  tonge  it  write  " 
he  knew  perfectly  well  that  his  readers  would  understand  by  "  Latin  "  the  language 
of  Virgil  and  Statius,  not  the  modern  speech  of  Florence  or  Padua.  Indeed,  he 
ensured  that  understanding  further  by  his  reference  to  "  olde  clerkes  speche  "  in 
v,  1854-1855,  shortly  after  his  mention  of  "  Virgile,  Ovyde,  Omer,  Lucan,  and 
Stace  "  in  v,  1792.  Finally,  even  if  Chaucer  had  meant  "  Italian  "  when  he  said 
"  Latin,"  he  would  none  the  less  have  been  resorting  to  a  fiction,  for  he  would  have 
been  deliberately  misleading  his  contemporaries. 

2  Boccaccio  labored  to  furnish  the  Teseide  with  appropriate  mythological  and 
other  classical  accoutrements,  but  in  the  Filostrato  he  is  sparing  of  such  adornments. 
The  contrast  between  the  two  Italian  poems  is  notable.  Cf.  Crescini,  Contributo 
agli  Studi  sul  Boccaccio,  pp.  246-247.    Since  Chaucer  was  very  familiar  with  the 


Chaucer's  Lollius  51 

an  ancient  —  a  Trojan  —  atmosphere  is  the  introduction  of  Antigone's 
song  of  love  as  "  a  Trojan  song  "  l  and  the  conversation  that  follows 
the  singing: 

"  Now,  nece,"  quod  Criseyde, 

"  Who  made  this  song  with  so  good  entente  ?  " 

Antigone  answerde  anoon  and  seyde, 

"  Ma  dame,  ywis,  the  goodlieste  mayde 

Of  greet  estat  in  al  the  toun  of  Troye, 

And  let  her  lyf  in  most  honour  and  ioye." 

"  Forsothe,  so  it  semeth  by  her  song  !  " 

Quod  tho  Criseyde.2 

There  is  not  a  word  of  this  song  or  of  the  dialogue  or  of  the  whole 
garden  scene  in  the  Filostrato,  and  Antigone  herself  is  a  character  in- 
vented by  Chaucer.  The  Trojanizing  of  the  situation,  if  I  may  risk 
the  term,  is  Chaucer's  deliberate  art.  It  is  quite  of  a  piece  with  his 
professing  to  have  got  hold  of  the  very  words  of  the  Cantus  Troili 
(not  given  in  full  by  Lollius)  and  to  have  reproduced  them  in  as  close 
a  version  as  can  be  made  in  translating  from  the  Trojan  language  into 
our  vernacular.3 

Equally  felicitous  and  to  the  same  end  is  Pandarus'  quotation  of 
the  Epistle  of  Oenone  to  Paris.  "  I  am  in  love  myself,"  says  Pandarus 
to  Troilus,  "  and  am  quite  helpless  in  my  own  case,  but  yet  I  can  assist 
you  in  yours.  Indeed,  my  situation  is  much  like  that  described  in  a 
letter  that  a  shepherdess,  Oenone  by  name,  wrote  once  to  your  brother 
Paris.  You  saw  the  letter,  didn't  you  ?  "  "  Why,  no!  "  replies 
Troilus.    "  Well,"  says  Pandarus,  "  this  is  how  it  went." 

"  I  woot  wel  that  it  fareth  thus  by  me 

As  to  thy  brother  Parys  an  herdesse, 

Which  that  y-cleped  was  Oenone, 

Wrot  in  a  compleynt  of  hir  hevinesse: 

Ye  say  the  lettre  that  she  wroot,  y  gesse?" 

"  Nay,  never  yet,  y-wis,"  quod  Troilus. 

u  Now,"  quod  Pandare,  "  herkneth;  it  was  thus."  * 

Teseide  when  he  wrote  the  Troilus,  and  used  it  several  times  in  that  poem,  we  may 
recognize  the  general  influence  of  the  Teseide  in  the  passages  we  are  now  considering 
(cf .  H.  M.  Cummings,  The  Indebtedness  of  Chaucer's  Works  to  the  Italian  Works  of 
Boccaccio,  p.  67). 

1  ii,  825.  ■  i,  393  ff.    Cf.  p.  93. 

*  ii,  877-884.  4  i,  652-658. 


52  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

An  extract  follows,  adapted  from  the  Heroides.1  There  is  nothing 
about  this  letter  in  the  Filostrato.  Chaucer's  device  in  making  Pan- 
darus  profess  to  have  seen  the  original,  in  Oenone's  own  handwriting, 
is  obviously  akin  to  the  device  involved  in  his  whole  Lollian  fiction. 
It  is  a  wonder  that  some  critic  has  not  accused  him  of  fraud  because 
he  did  not  insert  a  credit  to  Ovid. 

Another  detail  to  the  same  general  purport  is  Pandarus's  casual 
reference  to  the  petrified  Queen  Niobe  as  one  of  the  sights  of  the  day: 

"  For  this  nis  not,  certeyn,  the  nexte  wyse 
To  winnen  love,  as  techen  us  the  wyse, 
To  walwe  and  wepe  as  Niobe  the  quene, 
Whos  teres  yet  in  marbel  been  ysene."  2 

This,  too,  is  of  course  not  in  the  Filostrato.  One  would  know  that 
well  enough  without  taking  heed  to  one's  books. 

We  cannot  pause  to  study  all  the  classical  touches  that  Chaucer 
has  added  to  the  story,  but  a  few  more  must  be  merely  enumerated, 
because  of  their  important  bearing  on  his  design.  Thus  he  makes 
Pandarus  compare  the  sufferings  of  Troilus  to  the  agony  of  Tityus 
torn  by  the  vultures,3  and  curse  himself  with  a  reference  to  Cerberus.4 
His  characters  swear  by  Minerva  and  Jupiter,5  by  Neptune,6  by  Mars,7 
by  Venus,8  by  "  natal  loves  fest," 9  by  Pallas,10  and  so  on.  He  describes 
Cressid's  servants  as  thronging  to  see  Troilus  ride  up  the  street  from 
the  Gate  of  Dardanus;11  he  puts  into  Pandarus'  mouth  directions  for 
a  love-letter  that  are  adapted  from  Ovid  and  the  Ars  Poetica; 12  he 
brings  a  Greek  spy  into  Troy  with  tidings  —  apparently  a  person  who 
has  just  been  captured  or  a  knave  who  is  playing  a  double  game;13  he 
introduces  the  episode  of  a  visit  to  Deiphobus,  full  of  intimate  detail 
of  the  royal  menage ;u  he  makes  Cressida  speak  of  Antenor  and  Aeneas 

1  Troilus,  i,  659-665;  Heroides,  v,  147-154  (see  p.  113,  below). 

2  i,  697-700. 
8  i,  785  ff. 

4  "  To  Cerberus  in  helle  ay  be  I  bounde  "  (i,  859).  Cf.  Roman  de  la  Rose,  ed. 
Michel,  II,  330:  "  Ou  me  lie  en  corde  ou  en  fer  Cerberus  li  portiers  d'enfer." 

6  ii,  232-233.  10  v,  977. 

6  ii,  443.  u  ii,  614-618. 

7  ii,  593.  «  ii,  1023-1043. 

8  ii,  1524.  13  ii,  1111-1113. 

9  iii,  150.  14  ii,  1394  s. 


Chaucer's  Lollius  53 

(well-known  to  mediaeval  readers  as  the  traitors  of  the  cycle)  as  lend- 
ing their  support  to  a  lawsuit  about  property  brought  against  her  by 
false  Poliphete; l  he  lets  Troilus  pretend  to  keep  vigil  in  Apollo's 
temple  to  see  the  "  holy  laurer  quake  "  and  to  get  an  oracle  for  the 
conduct  of  the  war.2  With  similar  regard  for  local  and  contemporary 
color  Pandarus  swears  "  by  stocks  and  stones"  and  by  the  gods  that 
dwell  in  heaven,  and  damns  himself,  if  his  speech  be  false,  to  abide  as 
deep  in  hell  as  Tantalus.3  Troilus  adjures  Venus  by  her  love  of  Adonis 
whom  she  loved  "  in  the  shawe,"  and,  continuing  his  prayer,  appeals 
to  Jove  (for  love  of  Europa),  to  Mars  (for  love  of  Venus),  to  Phoebus 
(for  love  of  Daphne),  to  Mercury  (for  love  of  Herse),  to  Diana,  and 
the  Fatal  Sisters.4  Again,  he  wishes  that  his  night  with  Cressida 
might  be  as  long  as  Jupiter's  with  Alcmena  5  and  chides  Titan  6  for 
allowing  the  Dawn  to  leave  his  side  so  early.7  Calchas  assures  the 
Greeks  that  Phoebus  and  Neptune  are  determined  to  bring  Troy  to 
destruction  because  Laomedon  refused  them  their  hire.8  Troilus  vows 
that  he  will  love  Cressida  after  he  is  dead  and  dwelling  in  torment  with 
Proserpine,9  but  she,  more  sanguine,  hopes  to  live  with  him  in  the 
Elysian  Fields,  like  Orpheus  and  Eurydice.10  She  swears  by  all  celes- 
tial gods,  by  every  nymph  and  infernal  deity,  and  by  the  satyrs  and 
fauns,  "  that  halve-goddes  ben  of  wildernesse,"  and  she  calls  upon 
Atropos  to  break  her  thread  if  ever  she  prove  false,11  and  declares  that 
Simois  that  runs  through  Troy  shall  turn  back  its  current  before  she 
will  be  unfaithful.12 

All  of  these  touches  of  antiquity  —  and  enough  more  to  make 
up  about  a  hundred  —  are  Chaucer's  own,  and  not  taken  from  the 
Filostrato.  Their  significance  depends  upon  their  number,  and  upon 
the  fact  that  they  are  in  the  main  quite  apposite.    Critics,  to  be  sure, 

1  ii,  1463-1475,  1616.       3  iii,  589-593. 

2  iii,  540-546.  4  iii,  718-735.      8  iii,  1427-1428. 

6  On  Chaucer's  error  in  substituting  Titan  for  Tithonus,  see  p.  116,  below. 

7  iii,  1464-1470.  8  iv,  120-126. 
9  iv,  470-476  (cf.  Teseide,  x,  106). 

10  iv,  785-791.  "  In  the  feld  of  pitee,  out  of  peyne,  That  hight  Elysos,"  looks  as  if 
Chaucer  etymologized  Elysios  with  reference  to  (Kyrie)  eleison.  Cf .  Ovid's  "  arva 
piorum,"  Met.,  xi,  62  (Publications  of  the  Modern  Language  Association,  XXIV, 
352,  n.  14). 

n  iv,  1541-1547. 

12  iv,  1548-1553  (cf.  Heroides,  v,  27-31;  Roman  de  la  Rose,  ed.  Michel,  II,  83). 


54  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

are  prone  to  dismiss  them  as  mere  "  classical  allusions,"  or  as  bits  of 
decoration,  or  even  as  symptoms  of  a  desire  to  show  off.  This  is  futile 
treatment.  Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  that  such  things  in  this  poem 
—  whatever  they  may  be  elsewhere  in  the  middle  ages  or  in  the 
eighteenth  century  —  are  present  as  parts  of  an  artistic  design.  They 
are  meant  to  produce  or  to  intensify  an  atmosphere  of  high  antiquity 
— a  Trojan  or  Lollian  atmosphere.  Chaucer  pretends — in  an  artistic 
fiction  —  to  be  translating  from  an  ancient  author,  and  he  tries  to 
make  his  characters  talk  and  think  like  persons  of  the  heroic  age  in 
such  matters  of  detail  as  do  not  interfere  with  their  truth  to  eternal 
and  unchanging  humanity.  He  could  not  dig  up  Troy.  It  was  out 
of  his  power  to  archaeologize  in  dress  and  manners  and  topography. 
But  he  could  make  Pandarus  swear  like  a  heathen  of  the  heroic  age, 
and  speak  familiarly  of  the  letter  he  had  seen  that  Oenone  wrote  to 
Paris,  and  refer  to  Niobe  and  her  tears  as  still  visible  in  stone  —  one 
of  the  wonders  of  the  world: 

"  Niobe  the  quene, 
Whos  teres  yet  in  marbel  been  ysene." 

And  all  this  he  did,  and  much  more,  with  the  same  artistic  purpose 
that  had  prompted  him  to  describe  his  whole  poem  as  translated  from 
an  ancient  Latin  author  —  one  Lollius,  whose  long-buried  work  he 
had  been  lucky  enough  to  disinter. 

Chaucer  names  Lollius  only  twice  in  the  Troilus,1  but  he  keeps  him 
constantly  in  the  reader's  memory  by  mentioning  him  as  his  aucior 
and  by  other  more  or  less  definite  references  and  allusions.  Altogether 
there  are  about  forty  such  passages,  or  an  average  of  one  to  about  two 
hundred  verses,  though  they  are  by  no  means  regularly  apportioned. 
Their  effect  upon  the  mind  is  uniform  and  cumulative,  nor  can  there 
be  any  doubt,  in  a  poem  so  carefully  finished,  that  this  effect  was  de- 
liberately intended.  In  short,  Chaucer  takes  quite  particular  pains 
to  convey  the  impression  that  his  Troilus,  from  beginning  to  end,  is  a 
faithful  translation  from  the  Latin  work  of  Lollius,  without  any  ma- 
terial additions  either  from  other  sources  or  from  his  own  pen.  Some- 
times, to  be  sure,  he  professes  or  implies  condensation,  and  now  and 
then  he  suggests  that  he  has  occasionally  consulted  the  well-known 

1  i,  394;  v,  1653. 


Chaucer's  Lollius  55 

authorities,1  but  these  remarks  are  never  made  in  such  a  way  as  to 
diminish  the  impression  of  thoroughgoing  fidelity  to  Lollius.  On  the 
contrary,  they  strengthen  that  impression,  for  they  always  imply 
either  that  Lollius  agrees  with  other  authorities  in  the  detail  in  ques- 
tion, or  that  the  poet  never  departs  from  Lollius,  even  in  a  trifle, 
without  due  notice.  Lollius,  then,  in  Chaucer's  fiction,  is  not  Boccac- 
cio or  Benoit  or  Guido  or  Statius  or  Ovid  or  Boethius:  he  is  simply 
Lollius,  an  alleged  Latin  author  on  the  Trojan  War,  to  whom  Chaucer 
chooses,  for  his  artistic  purposes,  to  credit  practically  everything  that 
the  Troilus  contains  —  everything,  that  is,  that  Chaucer  drew  from 
Boccaccio  and  Benoit  and  Guido  and  Statius  and  Ovid  and  Boethius, 
and  likewise  everything  that  he  drew  from  the  brain  of  Geoffrey 
Chaucer.  In  other  words,  Chaucer's  pretended  use  of  Lollius  is  not 
an  acknowledgement  of  obligations  to  Boccaccio  or  to  anybody  else: 
it  is  a  fiction,  deliberately  adopted  in  advance,  impressed  upon  the 
reader  with  all  the  emphasis  of  which  the  poet  is  capable,  and  fostered 
and  supported  by  repeated  assertion  and  skilful  innuendo. 

Here  we  must  be  on  our  guard  against  taking  the  poet  too  seriously. 
Chaucer  counted  on  two  classes  of  contemporary  readers:  first,  the 
gentlemen  and  some  of  the  ladies  of  his  time,  who  were  cultivated  but 
not  scholarly;  and  second,  a  very  limited  group  of  men  of  learning, 
like  Gower  and  Strode,  the  pair  to  whom  the  Troilus  is  dedicated.  If 
the  first  class  accepted  his  citation  as  gospel  truth,  and  were  convinced 
that  he  had  unearthed  a  Trojan  history  by  one  Lollius  in  some  old 
parchment  volume,  well  and  good !    If  the  second  class  saw  through 

1  Chaucer  twice  distinguishes  sharply  between  the  usual  story  of  Troy,  to  be 
found  in  Homer  and  Dictys  and  Dares,  and  the  particular  Trojan  story  that  he 
has  in  hand  in  the  Troilus.  One  of  these  distinguishing  passages  comes  very  early 
in  the  poem  (i,  141-147),  the  other  is  near  the  end  (v.  1765-1771). 

All  the  passages  in  which  Chaucer  refers  or  alludes  to  an  auctor  or  a  source  are 
collected  and  discussed  in  Appendix  I  (pp.  92-109,  below).  This  appendix  the 
reader  is  advised  to  ignore  if  he  agrees  with  my  assertions.  If  he  dissents,  I  beg 
him  to  peruse  only  enough  of  it  to  convince  him.  The  chief  reason  for  the  existence 
of  this  appendix  is  the  elaborate  and  ingenious  argument  of  Dr.  H.  M.  Cummings 
in  Chapter  viii  of  his  substantial  dissertation  on  The  Indebtedness  of  Chaucer's  Works 
to  the  Italian  Works  of  Boccaccio  (Cincinnati,  19 16)  —  an  argument  which  arrives 
at  results  that  differ  toto  caelo  from  what  seems  to  me  the  plain  meaning  of  the 
evidence.  It  is  only  fair  to  add  that  I  have  found  Dr.  Cummings's  monograph 
very  useful  in  many  ways. 


56  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

the  device  and  recognized  Lollius  as  a  part  of  the  fiction,  still  well  and 
good!  Everybody  would  be  content.  The  ladies  and  gentlemen 
would  raise  no  question  anyhow;  the  scholars  would  compliment  him 
on  the  success  of  his  poetic  device.  Nobody  would  make  trouble  until 
modern  scholarship  should  come  into  existence,  with  its  artificially 
stimulated  craving  for  literary  facts  —  and  Chaucer  was  under  no 
obligation  to  quench  the  thirst  of  modern  scholarship. 

Another  caution  seems  to  be  necessary  at  this  point,  though  one 
would  suppose  a  sense  of  humor  might  have  provided  for  it  in  advance. 
Chaucer's  pretence  of  drawing  his  plot  and  sentiments  from  the  Latin 
work  of  one  Lollius  is  an  artistic  device,  not  a  fraud.  It  has  just  as 
much  and  just  as  little  to  do  with  veracity  as  Addison's  pretending  to 
translate  the  Vision  of  Mirzah  from  a  manuscript  that  he  "  picked  up 
when  he  was  at  Grand  Cairo,"  or  Goldsmith's  crediting  The  Citizen 
of  the  World  to  a  Chinese  sage,  or  Hawthorne's  calling  RappaccinVs 
Daughter  a  translation  from  the  "  Beatrice;  ou  la  Belle  Empois- 
soneuse  "  of  M.  de  l'Aubepine,  the  author  of  "  L' Artiste  du  Beau; 
ou  le  Papillon  Mecanique  "  in  five  volumes  quarto;  or  Mr.  Maurice 
Hewlett's  pretending  to  utilize,  for  his  Richard  Yea  and  Nay,  a  chron- 
icle by  one  "  Milo,  a  Carthusian  monk,  abbot  of  the  cloister  of  Saint 
Mary-of-the-Pine  by  Poictiers,"  who  enjoyed  the  distinction  of  be- 
ing "  the  life-long  friend  "  of  King  Richard  himself  —  a  real  person, 
by  the  way,  whose  account  of  the  "  acta  "  of  Richard  I  exists  no 
longer.1  I  cannot  refrain  from  quoting  a  recent  critic  of  Mr.  Hewlett, 
merely  to  show  how  different  is  the  spirit  in  which  we  judge  our  con- 
temporary romancers  and  their  clever  tricks,  from  the  stodgy  mixture 
of  naive  literalness  and  moral  fervor  that  dominates  us  when  we  ap- 
praise Chaucer.  "  It  is  from  the  writings  of  this  priest,"  says  Mr. 
Milton  Bonner,  "  that  Mr.  Hewlett  pretends  to  draw  justification 
for  his  inventions.  The  extracts  from  Milo's  supposititious  history 
lend  just  the  air  of  verity  that  we  needed  to  help  overcome  scruples 
when  confronted  by  certain  aspects  of  the  story."  2 

Here,  perhaps,  is  the  place  to  compare  Chaucer's  artistic  device  in 
the  Troilus  with  his  procedure  in  several  of  the  Canterbury  Tales. 

1  See  Stubbs,  Chronicles  and  Memorials  of  the  Reign  of  Richard  I,  I,  xxxiii- 
xxxiv. 

2  Maurice  Hewlett,  BostoD,  1910,  p.  81. 


Chaucer's  Lollius  57 

The  Miller's  Tale  and  the  Reeve's  are  fabliaux  worked  up,  doubt- 
less, from  the  French ;  yet  Chaucer  makes  the  Miller  localize  the  story 
at  Oxford,1  and  the  Reeve  lays  the  scene  of  the  adventure  with  which 
he  replies  to  the  Miller,  at  Trumpington,  near  Cambridge,  where  there 
is  a  brook  with  a  bridge  and  a  mill,  emphasizing  his  story  as  "  verray 
sooth." 2  The  Cook's  Tale  is  "  a  litel  iape  that  fil  in  our  citee  "  of 
London.3  The  Friar's  Tale,  in  like  manner,  is  of  persons  well-known 
"  in  my  contree,"  4  and  his  opponent  the  Sumner  is  earnest  enough 
in  denouncing  it  as  a  lie.5  Yet  he  localizes  his  own  anecdote  in  a 
marshy  district  called  Holderness  in  Yorkshire.6  Even  the  Nun's 
Priest  follows  the  fashion,  though  with  a  deliriously  ironical  innu- 
endo: 

"  This  storie  is  also  trewe,  I  undertake, 
As  is  the  book  of  Launcelot  de  Lake, 
That  wommen  holde  in  ful  great  reverence." 7 

Particularly  enlightening  with  regard  to  Chaucer's  methods  as  a 
writer  of  fiction  are  the  words  of  the  Man  of  Law  in  praise  of  mer- 
chants. "  Ye  are  the  fathers  of  tidings,"  says  the  lawyer,  "  and  of 
tales,  both  those  of  peace  and  those  of  strife ! 

"  I  were  right  now  of  tales  desolat, 
Nere  that  a  marchaunt,  goon  is  many  a  yere, 
Me  taughte  a  tale,  which  that  ye  shal  here."  8 

Then  follows  the  story  of  Constance,  which  is  taken  for  the  most  part 
from  Nicholas  Trivet's  chronicle,  though  Trivet  might  never  have 
walked  the  earth  for  anything  that  Chaucer  says  about  him. 

Nowhere,  in  short,  does  Chaucer,  in  his  capacity  of  writer  of  fiction, 
recognize  any  obligation  whatever  to  cite  the  actual  source  of  his 
material,  or  scruple  to  lend  an  air  of  truth  and  reality  to  his  stories  by  / 
including  express  statements  as  to  source  or  scene  that  bear  no  rela- 
tion whatever  to  the  facts.  We  have  as  much,  and  as  little,  reason  to 
be  surprised  at  his  ascription  of  the  Troilus  to  somebody  different  from 
Boccaccio  as  to  be  surprised  at  his  pretending  to  have  dreamed  The 

1  A  3187.  On  these  localizing  touches  cf.  Tatlock,  The  Scene  of  the  Franklin's 
Tale  Visited,  p.  70,  note  1. 

2  A  3921-3924.  6  D  1670. 

3  A  4343.  6  D  1709-1712. 

4  D  1299.  7  B  4401-4403.  8  B  129-133. 


58  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

Book  of  the  Duchess  and  the  House  of  Fame.  In  the  latter  case,  we 
recall,  he  mentions  the  very  month  and  day  on  which  he  had  the 
vision ! l 

Let  us  next  consider  the  attitude  of  Chaucer's  immediate  circle 
toward  his  ascription  of  the  Troilus  material  to  Lollius.  The  poem  is 
dedicated  to  John  Gower  and  Ralph  Strode.  Did  these  scholarly 
persons  accept  this  ascription  as  a  matter  of  fact?  Of  course  not. 
Strode  was  a  professional  philosopher,  and  must  instantly  have  recog- 
nized the  complaint  of  Cressida2  and  the  song  of  Troilus 3  in  the  Third 
Book  and  the  long  soliloquy  of  Troilus  in  Book  Fourth,4  as  founded 
on  Boethius.  This  information,  indeed,  was  within  the  reach  of  any 
Englishman  who  had  access  to  a  copy  of  Chaucer's  own  version,  if,  as 
is  altogether  likely,  this  had  been  published  before  the  Troilus  came 
out.  Gower,  for  his  part,  might  be  trusted  to  detect  the  borrowings 
from  Ovid,  whose  works  he  knew  almost  by  heart.  In  particular,  he 
could  not  miss  the  quotation  in  Book  i5  from  Oenone's  epistle  in  the 
Heroides,6  which  Chaucer  himself  had  sufficiently  labelled  for  any 
half-educated  reader  by  making  Pandarus  introduce  it  as  an  extract 
from  "  the  letter  that  she  wrote."  T  Neither  Gower  nor  Strode  could 
fail  to  perceive  that  Cassandra's  account  of  the  Theban  contest 8  was 
drawn  from  Statius,  even  if  Chaucer  himself  is  not  responsible  for  the 
insertion  of  the  twelve  lines  of  Latin  that  give  the  argument  of  the 
twelve  books  of  the  Thebaid.9  As  for  the  story  of  Troilus  in  general, 
it  was  perfectly  familiar  to  Gower  in  one  of  his  favorite  volumes,  the 
Roman  de  Troie,10  and  he  could  scarcely  have  overlooked  all  of  the 
numerous  passages  for  which  Chaucer  is  indebted  to  Benoit.11 

This  accumulation  of  "  details  tending  to  prove  "  may  seem  absurd 
in  so  plain  a  case,  but  the  reader  will  pardon  it  if  he  recollects  the  in- 

1  House  of  Fame,  63. 

2  iii,  813-836;  Boethius,  ii,  prose  4. 

3  iii,  1744-1771;  Boethius,  ii,  metre  8. 

4  iv,  958-1078;  Boethius,  v,  pr.  2  and  3. 
6  i,  659-665  (cf.  p.  113,  below). 

6  v,  I47-IS4.  8  v,  1485-1510. 

7  i,  656.  9  After  v,  1498. 

10  See  Kittredge,  Date  of  Chaucer's  Troilus,  pp.  4-7. 

11  See  Young,  Origin  and  Development  of  the  Story  of  Troilus  and  Criseyde,  pp. 
105  ff. 


Chaucer's  Lollius  59 

clination  of  scholars  to  judge  the  middle  ages  as  a  time  apart,  when 
nobody  thought  or  felt  or  acted  as  men  do  now-a-days.  There  was, 
we  are  told,  a  childlike  faith  in  authority  —  the  written  word  was  al- 
ways accepted  at  its  face  value.  Perhaps  so  —  though  I  doubt  it 
vehemently  —  but  that  has  nothing  to  do  with  what  passed  between 
man  and  man  in  the  give-and-take  of  ordinary  life.  Gower  and 
Strode  might  have  accepted  a  citation  of  Lollius  as  a  sober  acknowledg- 
ment of  genuine  indebtedness  if  they  had  seen  it  in  Vincent  of  Beauvais 
or  John  of  Salisbury;  but  they  knew  the  difference  between  an  en- 
cyclopaedist or  a  philosopher  and  a  romancing  poet,  and  they  knew 
Geoffrey  Chaucer  in  his  habit  as  he  lived.  How  many  of  his  readers 
Mr.  Hewlett  took  in  with  his  Abbot  Milo,  who  shall  tell?  Not  many, 
I  fancy,  among  the  better  educated;  none  at  all,  I  am  sure,  among 
his  personal  friends.  Nor  did  Mr.  Hewlett  desire  to  take  anybody  in. 
He  simply  wished  to  heighten  the  verisimilitude  of  his  romance  by 
means  of  an  ancient  and  well-accredited  device. 

But  let  us  return  to  Strode  and  Gower.  Can  there  be  the  slightest 
doubt  that  Chaucer  told  these  intimate  friends  of  his  all  he  knew 
about  the  Filostrato  months  before  he  began  to  work  at  his  own  adap- 
tation, or  that,  as  time  went  on,  he  read  parts  of  the  Troilus  to  them 
and  talked  over  his  plans  with  regard  to  the  work,  including  the  felici- 
tous idea  of  ascribing  it  to  one  Lollius?  At  the  outset  we  purposed 
to  examine  such  probabilities  in  the  light  not  only  of  reason  and  com- 
mon sense  but  also  of  the  habits  of  literary  men.  Are  we  to  assume 
that  Chaucer  never  discussed  his  poems  while  he  was  writing  them? 

Chaucer's  immediate  circle,  then,  knew  well  enough,  when  the 
Troilus  appeared,  that  he  had  drawn  much  of  his  material  from  an 
Italian  poet,  and  none  of  it  from  Lollius.  He  made  no  secret  of  the 
matter;  indeed,  he  could  not  have  mystified  them  if  he  had  wished. 
Nor  is  there  any  likelihood  that  he  swore  them  to  secrecy  when  he 
took  them  into  his  confidence.  He  was  composing  a  romantic  novel, 
not  forging  a  will.  And,  beyond  any  reasonable  question,  the  fact 
that  the  Troilus  came  largely  from  an  Italian  poem  was  soon  a  matter 
of  common  knowledge,  with  Chaucer's  hearty  consent,  among  all 
such  persons  as  took  an  interest  in  him  and  his  works. 

For  this  last  proposition,  however,  we  need  not  depend  upon  general 
probabilities.     There  is  a  distinct  piece  of  positive  evidence  that 


60  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

establishes  it  beyond  a  peradventure.  I  refer  to  a  notorious  passage 
in  Lydgate,  which  has  been  stretched  upon  the  rack  a  score  of  times 
to  elicit  confessions  of  things  that  it  could  not  confess,  but  has  never, 
I  think,  been  interrogated  with  regard  to  the  single  point  on  which  it 
is  really  competent  to  testify  and  quite  ready  to  speak  without  com- 
pulsion. 

In  youth  he  made  a  translacion 

Of  a  booke  which  called  is  Trophe 

In  Lumbard  tong,  as  men  may  reade  and  see, 

And  in  our  vulgare,  long  or  that  he  deyed, 

Gaue  it  the  name  of  Troylous  and  Cresseyde.1 

Lydgate  is  a  muddled  witness,  as  usual.  Still,  the  difficulties  in  the 
present  case  are  by  no  means  staggering.  "  In  his  youth  "  is  too  early, 
but  Lydgate  knew  nothing  about  the  minutiae  of  Chaucerian  chronol- 
ogy, and  the  question  of  dates  does  not  here  concern  us.  "  Trophe  " 
is  a  manifest  blunder.  There  is  no  chance  whatever  that  the  Filostrato, 
or  anything  else  that  Chaucer  used  in  the  Troilus,  was  ever  called  by 
any  such  name.  The  blunder  is  due  to  mere  confusion  of  memory. 
Lydgate  had  read  The  Monk's  Tale,  where  Chaucer  cites  "  Trophe  " 
as  an  authority  on  the  Pillars  of  Hercules,2  and  he  shifted  the  appli- 
cation in  a  moment  of  paramnesia.  Chaucer's  "  Trophee  "  may  be 
a  mystery,3  but  Lydgate's  is  not.  It  has  no  foundation  or  genesis  save 
in  this  passage  of  The  Monk's  Tale,  misapplied  by  a  constitutional 
blunderer,  and  it  need  trouble  us  no  more. 

What  remains,  then,  of  our  quotation  from  Lydgate?  Simply 
this:  the  statement  that  Chaucer  translated  his  Troilus  from  a  book 
"in  Lombard  tongue"  —  that  is,  in  Italian.  In  other  words,  good 
Dan  John,  about  a  generation  after  Chaucer's  death,  was  well  aware 
that  the  source  of  the  Troilus  was  not  a  Latin  book  by  Lollius,  but  a 
book  in  the  Italian  language.  How  did  Lydgate  know?  Why,  from 
the  common  talk  of  literary  men,  passed  down  by  immediate  tradition 

1  Falls  of  Princes,  Prologue  (ed.  1554,  Tottell,  sig.  A.  ii  v°;  ed.  1558,  Wayland, 
sig.  A.  ii  v°). 

2  B  3307. 

8  For  some  recent  conjectures  see  my  essay  on  The  Pillars  of  Hercules  and  Chau- 
cer's "  Trophee,"  in  the  Putnam  Anniversary  Volume,  1909,  pp.  545  ff.;  Tupper, 
Modern  Language  Notes,  XXXI,  11;  Emerson,  in  the  same,  XXXI,  142. 


Chaucer's  Lollius  61 

from  the  contemporaries  of  Chaucer  himself.1  In  other  words,  there 
had  never  been  any  secret  about  the  derivation  of  the  Troilus  from 
the  Filostrato.  Chaucer's  citation  of  Lollius  was  not  deceit,  but  trans- 
parent literary  artifice.  Anybody  who  asked  the  facts  was  at  liberty 
to  learn  them.  They  were  matters  of  general  knowledge  among 
Chaucer's  friends  and  the  court  circle  in  general. 

Much  dust  has  been  raised  over  Chaucer's  neglect  or  omission  to 
mention  the  name  of  Boccaccio  anywhere.  Let  us  examine  the  matter. 
The  places  in  which  moderns  look  in  vain  for  some  reference  to 
Boccaccio  are  the  Troilus,  The  Knight's  Tale,  Anelida  and  Arcite,  The 
Monk's  Tale,  and  The  Clerk's  Tale.2 

The  Troilus  we  have  already  considered,  and  to  it  we  shall  later 
return.  What  has  there  been  said  applies  in  general  (except  so  far  as 
Lollius  is  concerned)  to  The  Knight's  Tale.  I  can  see  no  reason  why 
Chaucer  should  have  mentioned,  or  made  the  knight  mention,  the 
direct  source  of  the  story,  any  more  than  in  the  case  of  the  other 
Canterbury  Tales.  For  almost  every  one  of  these  Chaucer  had  a  source; 
but  he  has  seldom  mentioned  it.  In  several  instances  the  teller  of  the 
story  insists  on  its  truth  and  undertakes  to  localize  it  in  England.  In 
no  one  of  all  these  cases  has  anybody  expressed  amazement  at  Chau- 
cer's fiction  in  localizing,  which  is,  of  course,  precisely  similar  to  that 
of  giving  your  story  (if  it  deals  with  ancient  times)  an  air  of  antiquity 

1  We  should  observe  that  Lydgate  does  not  connect  Lollius  with  "  Trophee  " 
or  assert  that  Chaucer  took  the  Troilus  from  Lollius.  On  the  contrary,  his  asser- 
tion that  Chaucer  translated  from  the  Italian  records  a  piece  of  information  which 
amounts  to  an  express  denial  that  Chaucer's  source  was  a  Latin  writer  —  whether 
Lollius  or  anybody  else.  When  Lydgate  mentions  Lollius,  as  he  does  (once)  in  the 
Troy  Book,  he  refers  to  him  not  as  an  author  used  by  Chaucer  anywhere,  but  simply 
as  a  person  who  wrote  about  the  siege  of  Troy.  "  And  of  this  sege  wrot  eke  Lollius  " 
(ed.  Bergen.  Prol.,  309).  This  information  Lydgate  doubtless  got  from  The  House 
of  Fame.  He  did  not  accept  the  statement  of  Chaucer  that  he  translated  the  Troilus 
from  Lollius'  Latin,  for  he  had  better  information;  but  he  did  accept  the  statement 
that  there  once  was  a  Lollius  who  composed  a  work  on  the  Trojan  history. 

2  Nobody,  I  believe,  expresses  amazement  at  Chaucer's  failure  to  mention 
Boccaccio  in  The  Parliament  of  Fowls  or  the  Prologue  to  the  Legend  of  Good  Women. 
As  to  The  Franklin's  Tale,  if  the  source  was  really  Boccaccio  (a  question  not  here 
in  place  to  debate),  one  has  but  to  compare  the  stories  to  see  that  Chaucer  must 
have  had  a  pedant's  conscience  if  he  had  felt  obliged  to  refer  to  Boccaccio  for  a 
performance  that  was  so  marvellously  his  own.  And  what,  in  turn,  was  Boccaccio's 
source,  and  why  did  not  he  refer  to  it  ? 


62  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

by  suppressing  the  name  of  your  actual  modern  authority  and  referring 
either  to  some  definite  Lollius  (as  in  Troilus)  or  in  general  to  the  "  old 
stories"  or  "old  books,"1  which  is  what  the  knight  does: 

As  olde  bokes  seyn 
That  al  this  storie  tellen  more  pleyn.2 

Once,  indeed,  he  adds  Statius  to  the  other  old  books: 

As  men  may  biholde 
In  Stace  of  Thebes,  and  thise  bokes  olde  (2293-2294).' 

The  particular  thing  is  in  the  Teseide,  vii,  72,  not  in  Statius.3  Note 
that  there  is  absolutely  no  claim  to  originality.  Throughout  the  poem, 
the  knight  protests,  again  and  again,  that  he  is  condensing  a  tale  that 
he  has  read.4  For  my  part,  I  can  see  no  reason  in  literary  morals  for 
mentioning  Boccaccio,  and  I  cannot  fail  to  see  abundant  reason,  in 
good  art,  for  doing  exactly  what  Chaucer  has  done.  If  it  be  objected 
that  The  Knight's  Tale  is  a  big  thing,  and  that  therefore  Chaucer  was 
under  more  pressing  obligation  to  mention  his  source  than  in  the  case 
of  the  anonymous  fabliaux,  I  will  take  refuge  in  the  Melibee,  where 
also  the  author  is  not  mentioned,  and  there  is  likewise  no  pretence  of 
originality.  Surely,  the  most  mathematically  minded  of  moderns  can 
grasp  the  general  fact  that,  when  a  mediaeval  writer  professed  to  be 
following  some  auctor  or  other,  thus  declining  all  merit  of  originality, 
he  was  under  no  sort  of  obligation  to  specify  who  that  auctor  really 
was.  Chaucer,  at  all  events,  acknowledged  no  such  obligation.  His 
practice  was  to  do  so  only  when  to  refer  to  the  source  would  add  to 
the  authority  or  verisimilitude.    In  The  Knight's  Tale,  a  reference  to 

1  A  859,  1198,  1463,  2155.  2  A  1463-1464. 

8  Dr.  Wise  makes  an  ingenious  defence  of  what  he  calls  Chaucer's  "  good  faith  " 
in  this  reference.  By  "hir  thinges,"  he  says,  "Chaucer  probably  means  such 
sacrificial  rites  as  Boccaccio  describes,  Tes.  vii.  75,"  and  he  goes  on  to  show  that 
similar  rites  are  described  (though  not  credited  to  Emilia,  of  course)  in  the  Thebaid 
(The  Influence  of  Statius  upon  Chaucer,  pp.  98-100).  Very  likely  Chaucer  had 
this  fact  in  mind,  but  that  does  not  change  the  other  fact,  —  namely,  that  he  de- 
liberately undertakes,  both  here  and  elsewhere,  to  produce  the  impression  that  he 
is  following  an  ancient  author  in  telling  the  story  of  Palamon  and  Arcite. 

4  A  875-892,  985,  994-1000,  1187-1190,  1201,  1341,  1358,  1377-1380,  1417, 1461, 
1463-1464,  1480,  1782,  1895,  1935,  1953-1954,  2039-2040,  2052,  2073-2074,  2197- 
2208,  2263-2264,  2284-2288,  2820-2821,  2919-2966. 


Chaucer's  Lollius  63 

Boccaccio's  Teseide  would,  on  the  contrary,  have  decreased  this  effect. 
It  would  have  been  inartistic  pedantry.  Let  it  here  be  remembered 
that  in  the  one  Canterbury  Tale  which  Chaucer  invented  (Sir  Thopas) 
he  fictitiously  declines  to  pass  as  the  author.  It  is  the  only  story 
he  knows  —  "a  rym  I  lerned  longe  agoon,"1  and  "  the  beste  rym  I 
can." i 

That  Chaucer  did  not  mention  Boccaccio  in  connection  with  the 
Anelida  would  never  have  attracted  a  moment's  attention,  were  it  not 
that  scholars  were  busied  in  rolling  up  a  cumulative  case.  We  shall 
return  to  this  fragment  presently. 

In  The  Clerk's  Tale,  that  scholar  refers  in  the  most  definite  and 
particular  way  to  Petrarch.  The  reference  completely  covers  the 
borrowing.  There  was  no  call  to  give  the  earlier  history  of  the  docu- 
ment anyhow,  whether  Chaucer  knew  it  (from  Petrarch's  preliminary 
letter)  or  not.  That  a  definite  and  correct  source  is  here  referred  to  is 
a  part  of  the  drama.  This  is  exactly  what  one  would  expect  the  Clerk, 
a  scholar,  to  do,  and  it  was  certainly  in  keeping  with  the  situation  for 
him  to  refer  to  a  clerk  who  praised  a  woman,  for  he  was  answering 
the  Wife  of  Bath,  who  had  declared  that  such  a  case  had  never  been 
heard  of.  Here  to  refer  to  the  exact  source,  then,  was  as  artistic  on 
Chaucer's  part  as  not  to  refer  to  it  in  the  other  cases.  However,  the 
point  we  are  discussing  —  why  does  Chaucer  never  refer  to  Boccaccio 
by  name?  —  is  neither  advanced  nor  retarded  by  this  instance.  It  is 
answer  enough  to  say:  He  does  not  refer  to  Boccaccio  because  he  got 
the  tale  from  Petrarch.  The  fiction  here  —  for  there  is  almost  always 
a  fiction  —  consists  in  the  Clerk's  assertion  that  Petrarch  told  him 
the  story  in  person  at  Padua. 

And  so  we  come  to  The  Monk's  Tale  —  where,  and  where  alone, 
there  is  a  real  puzzle.  For  here,  in  the  account  of  Zenobia,  which 
comes  from  Boccaccio's  De  Claris  Mulieribus,  the  Monk  refers  to  "  my 
maister  Petrak."  Why,  I  do  not  know,  —  perhaps  because  Chaucer 
thought  him  a  more  appropriate  author  than  Boccaccio  for  the  dec- 
orous and  stately  Monk  to  cite.  That,  at  all  events,  would  be  reason 
enough.  As  to  lapse  of  memory,  or  confusion  —  that,  too  would  cer- 
tainly have  been  easy.  Almost  all  the  Zenobia  comes  from  Boccaccio's 
treatise  De  Claris  Mulieribus,  —  only  a  bit  from  the  De  Casibus — and 
1  B  1898-1899.  *  B  2118. 


64  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

what  more  likely  than  that  Chaucer  should  have  confused  this  in  his 
memory  with  Petrarch's  work  with  a  similar  title,  De  Viris  Illustribus? 
Petrarch  does  speak  of  Zenobia  in  the  Trionfo  delta  Fama  (ii,  1 07-1 17, 
ed.  Appel,  p.  255);  but  I  see  no  reason  to  believe  that  Chaucer  was 
acquainted  with  that  poem. 

Since  we  are  on  the  subject  of  "  Boccaccio  and  obligations,"  may 
it  not  be  enlightening  to  observe  how  Boccaccio  himself  proceeded  in 
the  matter  of  acknowledging  indebtedness  ?  First,  the  Teseide.  In 
the  dedicatory  letter  to  la  Fiammetta,  Boccaccio  asserts  that  he  came 
across  a  very  ancient  history,  unknown  to  most  people,1  and  this  he 
has  turned  into  Italian  rhyme.  In  the  second  stanza  of  the  poem 
itself  he  repeats  this  statement,  declaring  that  he  is  about  to  write  in 
rhyme  an  ancient  history,  so  buried  and  hidden  in  years  that  no 
Latin  author  says  anything  about  it,  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge  and 
belief: 

E'  m'e  venuta  voglia  con  pietosa 

Rima  di  scriver  una  storia  antica, 

Tanto  negli  anni  riposta  e  nascosa, 

Che  latino  autor  non  par  ne  dica, 

Per  quel  ch'  i'  senta,  in  libro  alcuna  cosa.2 

A  very  large  part  of  the  Teseide  is  borrowed  from  the  Thebaid?  Yet 
Statius  is  nowhere  cited,  for  it  is  Boccaccio's  deliberate  intention  to 
refer  his  epic  to  a  source  known  only  to  himself,  —  to  a  lost  author 
whom  he  has  had  the  luck  to  discover.  Now  when  Chaucer  wrote 
the  Troilus,  he  was  well  acquainted  with  both  the  Thebaid  and  the 
Teseide.*  Of  course,  then,  he  saw  whence  the  Italian  poet  had  derived 
a  large  part  of  his  material,  never  scrupling  to  translate  literally.  Nor 
could  he  fail  to  appreciate  the  wisdom  and  artistic  justification  of 
Boccaccio's  pretence  about  the  lost  author  so  happily  discovered  by 
him.  Here  let  it  be  noted  that  Chaucer's  debt  to  Boccaccio  in  the 
Troilus  is  for  almost  exactly  one  third  of  his  poem  —  precisely  the 

1  "  Trovata  una  antichissima  storia,  e  al  piu  delle  genti  non  manifesta  "  (p.  3). 

2  This  passage  makes  the  question  whether  Chaucer  knew  the  dedicatory  letter 
to  la  Fiammetta  a  matter  of  indiifference  in  our  discussion.  Cf.  Teseide,  xii,  84-85. 
Note  also  "Si  gli  nasconde  in  se  la  lunga  etade,"  vi,  64  (Aeneid,  v,  302),  and  in 
particular  "  se  il  ver  l'antichita  ragiona,"  xii,  53,  where  the  poet  is  describing  Emilia. 

8  See  pp.  121  ff.,  below  for  details. 

4  On  Chaucer's  use  of  the  Teseide  in  the  Troilus,  see  pp.  no  ff.,  below. 


Chaucer's  Lollius  65 

amount  of  Boccaccio's  debt  to  Statius  in  the  Teseide.  It's  a  poor  rule 
that  won't  work  both  ways:  yet  I  have  heard  nobody  express  sur- 
prise at  Boccaccio's  silence  about  his  debt  to  Statius. 

When  we  examine  the  Filostrato,  we  observe  a  state  of  things  no 
less  interesting  and  significant.  Boccaccio  assures  his  lady  in  the 
Proemio  that  he  found  it  impossible  to  conceal  his  feelings  of  love  and 
sorrow  without  dying.  He  determined,  therefore,  to  relieve  them  by 
utterance,  and,  by  a  kind  of  divine  inspiration,  he  hit  upon  the  idea 
of  relating  them  in  song  in  the  character  of  some  lover  whose  suffer- 
ings resembled  his  own.  "Meco  adunque  con  sollecita  cura  cominciai 
a  rivolgere  l'antiche  storie,  per  trovare  cui  potesse  verisimilmente 
fare  scudo  del  mio  segreto  e  amoroso  dolore."  No  personage  that  was 
better  adapted  to  this  purpose  occurred  to  him  than  "  il  valoroso 
giovane  Troilo,"  son  of  the  noble  Priam,  king  of  Troy;  for  the  life  of 
Troilus,  in  that  it  was  sorrowful  on  account  of  love  and  the  absence  of 
Criseida,  "  se  fede  alcuna  alle  antiche  storie  si  pud  dare,"  was  very 
similar  to  Boccaccio's  own  after  the  departure  of  his  lady.  Therefore 
he  composed  the  Filostrato.  "  When  you  find  Troilus,"  he  adds,  "  la- 
menting the  departure  of  Criseida,  you  will  be  able  to  comprehend  my 
words,  my  tears,  my  sighs,  and  my  anguish;  when  he  praises  Criseida 
you  may  understand  that  I  am  praising  you.  The  other  matters,  how- 
ever, concerning  his  previous  felicity,  have  no  reference  to  me.  I  have 
inserted  them  because  they  are  found  in  the  history  of  that  noble 
lover."  1 

The  Italian  poet,  then,  here  as  in  the  Teseide,  professes  to  have 
drawn  his  material  from  some  ancient  author,  to  whose  work  he  refers 
as  la  storia  more  than  once  in  the  course  of  the  poem.2  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  he  derived  the  story  of  Troilus  and  Cressida  from  the  Roman 
de  Troie  of  Benoit  de  Sainte  Maure,  and  utilized  Guido  delle  Colonne 
to  some  extent; 3  but  neither  of  these  writers  did  he  deign  to  mention, 
wisely  and  artistically  preferring  to  lend  his  poem  the  authority  of 

1  L'altre  cose  [besides  the  laments  and  the  praises  of  the  lady],  che  oltre  a  queste 
vi  sono  assai,  niuna,  siccome  gia  dissi,  a  me  non  appartiene,  ne  per  me  vi  si  pone, 
ma  perche  la  storia  nel  nobile  innamorato  giovane  lo  richiede  (p.  9). 

2  See  i,  16,  46;  iii,  90;  cf.  i.  48. 

3  See  Young,  The  Origin  and  Development  of  the  Story  of  Troilus  and  Criseyde, 
1908,  for  details. 


66  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

an  unnamed  ancient.  Like  Chaucer,  Boccaccio  credits  to  this  ancient 
not  only  all  that  he  has  borrowed  from  anybody,  but  also  all  that  he 
has  invented  himself. 

Now  Chaucer  was  just  as  familiar  with  Benoit  as  Boccaccio  was; l 
and,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Teseide  he  had  noted  the  Italian's  unacknowl- 
edged debt  to  Statius,  so  in  the  case  of  the  Filostrato  he  noted  his  un- 
acknowledged debt  to  Benoit.2  This  debt,  he  saw,  was  substantial; 
yet  Boccaccio  had  not  only  ignored  it  but  had  taken  pains  to  divert 
attention  from  Benoit  by  insisting  on  a  very  "  ancient "  source. 
Further,  Chaucer  observed  (no  doubt  with  pleasure)  that  in  the 
Teseide  Boccaccio  had  appealed  to  a  history  so  old  as  not  to  be  men- 
tioned by  the  [known  and  extant]  Latin  writers  —  that  is,  to  a  lost 
document  which  the  Italian  poet  had  had  the  good  fortune  to  find. 
•  Chaucer  was  an  apt  pupil,  and  he  took  all  the  hints.  He  suppressed 
/  the  name  of  Boccaccio  in  the  Troilus  as  Boccaccio  had  suppressed  the 
name  of  Benoit  in  the  Filostrato,  and  he  ascribed  his  poem  to  an  ancient 
Latin  writer.  Further,  he  improved  upon  the  fiction  that  his  master 
had  used  in  the  Teseide.  He  actually  knew  (so  he  thought)  the  name 
of  an  ancient  who  had  written  a  lost  work  on  the  Trojan  War  —  one 
Lollius  —  and  so  he  not  only  pretended  to  have  found  a  manuscript 
known  to  few  or  none  of  his  contemporaries,  but  gave  the  very  name 
of  the  author  whom  he  professed  to  follow. 

That  Chaucer  did  in  very  truth  get  the  suggestion  for  the  Lollian 
fiction  (except  for  the  name)  from  Boccaccio  in  the  manner  just  indi- 
cated, and  from  the  Italian  passages  just  referred  to,  is  fortunately 
not  a  matter  of  conjecture  or  even  of  mere  inference.  For  we  may  be 
quite  certain  that  he  read  with  care  both  the  Proemio  to  the  Filostrato 
and  the  second  stanza  of  the  Teseide.  As  to  the  Proemio,  his  eager 
disclaimer  of  personal  knowledge  of  a  lover's  feelings,  his  profession 
of  being  an  outsider  in  such  matters,3  is  a  clear  and  deliberate  reversal 

1  See  Publications  of  the  Modern  Language  Association,  XXIV,  344  ff. 

2  It  may  no  doubt  be  alleged  that  Boccaccio's  indebtedness  to  Benoit  in  the 
Filostrato  is  not  so  large  in  bulk  as  Chaucer's  indebtedness  to  Boccaccio  in  the 
Troilus;  but  that  does  not  signify.  Boccaccio's  debt  to  Benoit  was  substantial  — 
without  Benoit  there  would  have  been  no  Filostrato.  Yet  Boccaccio  not  only  ignores 
Benoit,  but  takes  pains  to  divert  attention  from  him  by  insisting  on  an  "  ancient  " 
source. 

'  Troilus,  ii,  8-21. 


Chaucer's  Lollius  67 

of  the  situation  of  Boccaccio  as  there  described.1  As  to  the  second 
stanza  of  the  Teseide,  the  evidence  is  still  more  striking,  for  Chaucer, 
before  he  composed  either  the  Palamon  or  the  Troilus,  had  actually 
utilized  that  stanza  as  the  second  stanza  of  his  unfinished  Anelida  and 
At  cite. 

W  m'  e  venuta  voglia  con  pietosa 

Rima  di  scriver  una  storia  antica, 

Tanto  negli  anni  riposta  e  nascosa, 

Che  latino  autor  non  par  ne  dica, 

Per  quel  ch'  i'  senta,  in  libro  alcuna  cosa.5 

For  it  ful  depe  is  sonken  in  my  minde 
With  pitous  herte  in  English  for  tendyte 
This  olde  storie,  in  Latin  which  I  finde, 
Of  quene  Anelida  and  fals  Arcita, 
That  elde,  which  that  al  can  frete  and  byte, 
As  it  hath  freten  many  a  noble  storie, 
Hath  nigh  devoured  out  of  our  memorie.3 

The  indebtedness  of  the  introductory  stanzas  of  Anelida  to  the 
introductory  stanzas  of  the  Teseide  was  noted  years  ago  by  ten  Brink; 4 
but  the  bearing  of  the  situation  on  the  Lollian  fiction  in  the  Troilus 

1  If  this  does  not  suffice,  we  may  clinch  the  matter  by  comparing  Troilus,  v, 
666-679,  with  Filostrato,  v,  70,  and  with  a  passage  in  the  Proemio.  Stanza  70  gave 
Chaucer  a  part  of  his  lines,  but  671-672  are  straight  from  the  Proemio: 

And  thennes  comth  this  eyr,  that  is  so  swote 

That  in  my  soule  I  fele  it  doth  me  bote. 
"Quindi  ogni  aura,  ogni  soave  vento  che  di  cola  viene,  cosi  nel  viso  ricevo,  quasi  il 
vostro  senza  niuno  fallo  abbia  tocco:  ne  e  percio  troppo  lungo  questo  mitigamento" 

(p.  4). 

2  Teseide,  i,  2.  Cf.  the  preliminary  letter  to  la  Fiammetta:  — "  Trovata  una 
antichissima  storia,  e  al  piu  delle  genti  non  manifesta  "  (p.  3). 

3  Anelida,  st.  2.  The  first  ten  stanzas  of  the  Anelida  have  their  sources  as  fol- 
lows: —  1-3  in  Teseide,  i,  1-3  (in  reverse  order,  3,  2,  1);  4-7  in  Thebaid,  xii,  519- 
535,  with  a  touch  from  Teseide,  ii,  22,  in  stanza  6;  8-10  in  Teseide,  ii,  10-12.  With 
stanza  n  Chaucer  begins  to  be  original  and  he  so  continues.  At  the  end  of  the 
fragment  he  is  about  to  describe  the  temple  of  Mars,  and  here,  of  course,  imita- 
tion of  Statius  or  of  the  Teseide  (or  of  both)  would  have  come  in  again.  But  the 
story  in  general  was  certainly  to  be  from  neither  Statius  nor  Boccaccio,  nor,  indeed, 
from  any  work  that  scholars  have  been  able  to  name  or  even  to  guess  at.  Skeat  has 
well  noted  the  resemblance  to  the  story  of  the  falcon  in  The  Squire's  Tale  {Oxford 
Chaucer,  I,  534). 

4  Chaucer,  Studien,  1870,  pp.  49~53- 


68  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

hardly  seems  to  have  been  perceived.  Chaucer's  procedure  in  the 
two  poems  is  practically  the  same.  In  the  Anelida  he  adopts  from 
the  Teseide  Boccaccio's  fiction  of  having  discovered  a  lost  or  forgotten 
piece  of  ancient  history,  and  expressly  declares  that  he  is  about  to 
translate  it  from  the  Latin.1  In  the  Troilus,  as  we  have  seen,  he  adopts 
the  very  same  fiction,  improving  upon  it  by  actually  naming  the  Latin 
writer  —  one  Lollius  —  whom  he  pretends  to  translate  faithfully.2 

1  A  reminiscence  of  Boccaccio's  fiction  in  the  Teseide  as  to  a  source  very  ancient 
and  therefore  little  known  —  an  echo,  indeed,  of  his  very  words  —  occurs  also  in 
the  defence  of  Chaucer  by  Alcestis  in  the  Legend: 

He  made  the  book  that  hight  the  Hous  of  Fame, 

And  ek  the  Deeth  of  Blaunche  the  Duchesse, 

And  the  Parlement  of  Foules,  as  I  gesse, 

And  al  the  love  of  Palamon  and  Arcite,  — 

Of  Thebes,  thogh  the  storie  is  knowen  lyte,  — 

And  many  an  ympne  for  your  holydayes  (A  405-410,  B  417-422). 
That  is,  "  Chaucer  wrote  all  the  love  of  Palamoun  and  Arcite  "  and  then,  paren- 
thetically, "  they  were  of  Thebes,  although  (unlike  the  tale  of  Cadmus  and  Oedipus 
and  Eteocles  and  Polynices  —  the  regular  Theban  cycle)  their  particular  history- 
is  not  included  in  the  ordinary  accounts  of  Thebes,  and  is  therefore  comparatively 
little  known."  It  is,  as  Boccaccio  has  said,  "  al  piu  delle  genti  non  manifesta," 
"  negli  anni  riposta  e  nascosa."  In  saying  that  "  the  story  is  little  known,"  Chaucer 
is  not  speaking  of  his  own  special  version,  but  of  the  story  itself,  i.e.  the  history,  the 
old  tale.  This  interpretation  (which  accords  with  the  regular  meaning  of  story  in 
Chaucer,  and  which  completely  justifies  the  though)  is,  in  the  main,  that  of  ten 
Brink  and  Skeat.  It  removes  the  passage  from  its  consecrated  position  as  an  indi- 
cation of  chronology,  for  what  Alcestis  says  is,  in  effect,  "  He  has  told  the  little- 
known  history  of  Palamon  and  Arcite,"  not  "  He  has  told  the  history  of  Palamon 
and  Arcite,  but  his  poem  has  attracted  slight  attention."  Thus  we  are  left  free  to 
put  the  Palamon  where  it  belongs,  before  the  Troilus  (see  p.  69,  note). 

2  Cf.  Anelida  (as  just  quoted)  with  Troilus,  ii,  13-14:  "Of  no  sentement  I  this 
endyte,  But  out  of  Latin  in  [  =  into]  my  tonge  it  write."  Note  also  that  the  Troilus  is 
called  a  translation  in  The  Legend  of  Good  Women,  A  350  (B  370),  cf.  A  250  (B  324). 

I  think  the  parallel  may  be  carried  still  farther.  In  the  Anelida,  after  declaring 
that  he  is  to  translate  from  the  Latin  an  old  and  almost  forgotten  story,  Chaucer 
concludes  his  proem  with  the  avowal,  "  First  follow  I  Stace,  and  after  him  Corinne  " 
(21).  In  fact  he  follows  Statius  (and  the  Teseide)  for  the  next  seven  stanzas  (4-10) 
and  then  begins  to  invent.  At  stanza  n,  then,  we  are  to  suppose  that  he  begins 
his  pretended  translation  from  Corinne  —  a  Theban  story.  The  most  natural 
inference  is  that  Chaucer  somehow  got  hold  of  the  name  of  Corinna  and  found  her 
described  as  a  famous  Theban  poetess,  and  that  he  accordingly  utilized  her  name  as 
he  utilized  that  of  Lollius  in  the  Troilus.  Where  he  found  the  so-called  Theban  Co- 
rinna mentioned,  we  do  not  know,  any  more  than  we  know  where  he  found  the  name 


Chaucer's  Lollius  69 

Since  he  really  believed  (as  The  House  of  Fame  shows)  that  there  had 
once  existed  a  work  on  Troy  by  this  Lollius,  the  alleged  use  of  him  in 
the  Troilus  involves  the  pretence  that  he  had  discovered  the  long-lost 
document. 

What  Chaucer  was  about  in  ascribing  the  Troilus  as  a  whole  to 
Lollius  —  the  real  ad  hoc  of  his  artistic  device  —  may  be  further  illus- 
trated, on  a  smaller  scale,  by  a  curious  passage  in  the  poem  itself.  In 
the  Fourth  Book,  when  Pandarus  is  trying  to  cheer  up  his  disconsolate 
friend,  he  cites  a  certain  Zanzis  or  Zauzis: 

And  eek,  as  writ  Zanzis,  that  was  ml  wys, 
"  The  newe  love  out  chaceth  ofte  tholde," 
And  upon  newe  cas  lyth  newe  avys. 
Thenk  eek  thyself  to  saven  artow  holde. 
Swich  fyr  by  proces  shal  of  kinde  colde; 
For  syn  it  is  but  casuel  plesaunce, 
Som  cas  shal  putte  it  out  of  remembraunce; 

For  al-so  seur  as  day  cometh  after  night, 

The  newe  loue,  labour,  or  other  wo, 

Or  elles  selde  seeing  of  a  wight, 

Don  olde  affecciouns  alle  ouer-go; 

And,  for  thy  part,  thou  shalt  have  oon  of  tho 

Tabrigge  with  thy  bittre  peynes  smerte: 

Absence  of  hir  shal  dryue  hir  out  of  herte  (iv,  414-427). 

For  all  this,  the  Filostrato  has  merely  (iv,  49,  1-4) 

E  come  io  udii  gia  sovente  dire, 
II  nuovo  amor  sempre  caccia  Fantico; 
Nuovo  piacere  il  presente  martire 
Torra  da  te. 

Ballenus  and  various  other  pieces  of  curious  lore  (see  p.  74,  below).  It  is  certain 
enough  that  the  Anelida  preceded  the  Palamon  (see  Tattock,  Development  and 
Chronology,  pp.  83-86,  where  previous  studies  of  Mather  and  others  are  cited). 
Whether  the  Troilus  or  the  Anelida  was  written  first,  makes  little  or  no  difference 
in  our  discussion,  and  the  point  may  be  waived.  For  my  own  part,  I  agree  with 
Lowes  in  the  order  Anelida,  Palamon,  Troilus  {Publications  of  the  Modern  Language 
Association,  XX,  861).  At  all  events,  the  Anelida  and  the  Troilus  cannot  be  far 
apart  in  date,  and  the  fiction  of  a  lost  or  hitherto  unknown  Latin  source  in  the 
Anelida  throws  a  strong  light  on  Chaucer's  intention  in  citing  Lollius  as  his  Latin 
auctor  in  the  Troilus.  I  may  add  that  the  parallel  still  holds  good  if  Corinne  be 
interpreted  as  Corinnus  (Skeat)  or  as  Ovid  (Shannon,  Publications,  as  above,  XXVII, 
461  ff.),  since  on  either  of  those  two  hypotheses  the  poet  would  still  be  pretending 
to  follow  for  his  narrative  a  lost  document  which  he  had  discovered. 


*jo  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

The  saying,  though  of  course  Boccaccio  does  not  let  Pandaro  say  so, 
is  from  the  Remedia  A  maris,  being  equally  similar  to  "  Successore 
novo  vincitur  omnis  amor  "  (462)  and  to  "Et  posita  est  cura  cura 
repulsa  nova"  (484).  Naturally  Chaucer  recognized  it,  for  the  former 
verse  introduces  the  famous  passage  about  Chryseis  and  the  latter 
concludes  it.1  His  mind,  therefore,  went  back  to  the  Remedia,  and 
he  expanded  Pandarus's  speech  by  adding  certain  other  cures  for  love 
that  are  mentioned  by  Ovid,  —  occupation  (see  R.  A.,  135-210,  espe- 
cially 139-144, 149-150,  205-206)  and  absence  (R.A.,  2 14-239) .2  Yet 
he  chose  to  ascribe  "The  newe  love  out-chacheth  ofte  the  olde"  to 
some  old  sage,  Zanzis3  or  Zauzis,  whom  an  ancient  like  Pandarus  might 
be  supposed  to  quote.  Here  we  have  a  device  which,  in  miniature,  is 
absolutely  identical  with  the  ascription  of  the  whole  poem  to  an  ancient 
Latin  worthy,  one  Lollius,  an  authority  on  Troy  and  the  Trojans. 

1  R.  A.,  462-484  (cf.  Kittredge,  The  Date  of  Chaucer's  Troilus,  pp.  17  ff.;  Wil- 
kins,  Boccaccio  Studies,  pp.  54-59. 

2  In  this  expansion  he  follows  in  part  Troilo's  words  to  Pandaro  as  given  by 
Boccaccio  a  few  stanzas  later  (iv.  59,  overlooked  by  Rossetti,  p.  186,  and  by 
Cummings,  p.  72) : 

Credimi  Pandar,  credimi  che  amore 
Quando  s'apprende  per  sommo  piacere 
Nell'  animo  d'alcun,  cacciarnel  fuore 
Non  si  pud  mai,  ma  puonne  ben  cadere 
In  processo  di  tempo,  se  dolore, 
O  morte,  o  poverta,  0  non  vedere 
La  cosa  amata  non  gli  son  cagione, 
Com'  egli  awenne  gia  a  piu  persone. 

Swich  fyr  by  proces  shal  of  kynde  colde. 

For  also  seur  as  day  cometh  after  night, 

The  newe  love,  labour,  or  other  wo, 

Or  elles  selde  seinge  of  a  wight, 

Don  olde  affeciouns  alle  ouer-go  (iv,  418,  421-424). 
**  Labour,"  not  in  Boccaccio,  is  directly  from  Ovid. 

8  Zanzis  is  thought  to  be  Zeuxis.  One  wonders  whether  Chaucer  had  happened 
to  hear  of  the  wise  and  prudent  person  of  that  name  who  figures  in  the  Alexander 
story.  This  Zeuxis  makes  his  appearance  in  the  first  book  of  Julius  Valerius. 
The  author  takes  pains  to  assure  us  that  this  is  not  the  famous  painter  (see  The 
Physician's  Tale,  C  16),  but  one  of  Philip's  courtiers.  He  had  charge  of  the  young 
Alexander's  expenditures  and  wrote  to  inform  Philip  and  Olympias  that  the  prince 
was  wasting  his  allowance  in  lavish  giving  (i,  16,  Kuebler,  pp.  17-18). 


Chaucer's  Lollius 


7i 


Little  did  Chaucer  imagine,  when  in  the  Troilus  he  adopted  and 
improved  Boccaccio's  fiction  of  a  lost  auctor,  that  future  generations 
would  pull  long  faces  as  they  solemnly  debated  his  ingratitude  in 
neglecting  to  specify  his  extensive  obligations  to  the  Italian  poet. 
When  he  and  Boccaccio  first  met  "in  the  feld  of  pitee,  out  of  peyne, 
that  hight  Elysos,"  it  is  unlikely  that  Boccaccio  thought  of  reproving 
him.  If,  however,  Boccaccio  was  so  lacking  in  humor,  and  in  appre- 
ciation of  an  author's  rights,  no  doubt  Chaucer  replied  by  quoting 
Shakspere  (with  the  same  anachronism  by  which  Shakspere  made 
Hector  quote  Aristotle) :  "  The  villany  you  teach  me  I  will  execute, 
and  it  shall  go  hard  but  I  will  better  the  instruction." 

So  far  we  have  proceeded,  I  think,  by  a  sober  and  pedestrian  method, 
following  known  facts  step  by  step.  We  have  resorted  to  no  conjec- 
tures, but  have  candidly  interpreted  the  obvious  phenomena  (as  we 
purposed  to  do)  in  the  light  of  reason  and  common  sense  and  of  the 
established  customs  of  literary  men  in  past  and  present.  Let  us  sum 
.up  the  results  in  the  form  of  definite  propositions. 

1.  The  mere  name  Lollius  is  not  a  blunder  or  an  invention;  for  it 
:  is  a  genuine  Roman  nomen  gentle. 

2.  Chaucer  found  the  name  somewhere  in  the  course  of  his  reading, 
j  and,  of  course,  it  was  in  some  context  that  he  found  it,  not  all  alone 
I  by  itself. 

3.  The  context  in  which  Chaucer  found  the  name  was  such  as  to 
teach  him  (erroneously)  that  one  Lollius  wrote  a  book  on  the  Trojan 
War. 

4.  Accordingly,  in  The  House  of  Fame,  Chaucer  included  Lollius 
in  a  list  of  authorities  on  the  matter  of  Troy  —  along  with  Homer, 
Dictys,  Dares,  Guido  delle  Colonne,  and  Geoffrey  of  Monmouth. 

^5.  In  thus  mentioning  Lollius  in  The  House  of  Fame  Chaucer  was 

not  inventing:    he  was  under  a  misapprehension.    He  believed  that 

1    a  work  by  Lollius  on  the  Trojan  War  had  once  existed,  but,  since 

\  neither  he  nor  any  of  his  acquaintances  had  ever  seen  it,  that  it  was 

lost. 

6.  When  Chaucer  wrote  the  Troilus,  his  erroneous  belief  that  one 
Lollius  had  written  a  (lost)  work  on  Troy  had  not  been  corrected. 

7.  Accordingly,  in  the  Troilus,  as  a  part  of  the  fiction,  Chaucer 
pretended  to  be  translating  faithfully  the  Latin  work  of  Lollius.    This 


72  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

Lollius  is  not  Boccaccio,  nor  Petrarch,  nor  Benoit,  nor  Guido:  he  is 
purely  and  simply  Lollius  —  a  supposed  ancient  writer  on  the  subject, 
whose  work  Chaucer  pretended  to  have  before  him.  The  fiction  con- 
sists not  in  ascribing  to  Lollius  a  work  on  Troy  (for  that  was  merely 
an  error)  but  in  claiming  to  have  this  work  in  hand  and  to  translate 
it  faithfully. 

8.  Chaucer's  fiction  of  pretending  to  follow  Lollius  in  the  Troilus 
was  imitated  and  improved  by  him  from  Boccaccio's  similar  fiction 
in  the  Teseide  and  the  Filostrato.  The  improvement  consists  in  ascrib- 
ing the  work  to  a  definitely  named  source  instead  of  "an  ancient 
history  "  or  "  a  lost  author  recently  discovered  by  me  in  turning  over 
ancient  books."  In  using  the  name  of  Lollius,  Chaucer  was  citing  an 
auctor  in  whose  existence  as  a  writer  on  Troy  he  fully  believed,  but 
whose  book  he  thought  had  disappeared. 

9.  Chaucer,  in  accordance  with  the  habits  of  his  time,  acknowledged 
no  obligation  to  mention  the  actual  sources  from  which  he  drew  the 
material  for  his  fictions.  He  felt  quite  at  liberty  to  invent  sources,  or 
to  give  credit  to  authors  different  from  those  to  whom  he  was  actually 
indebted.  In  the  practice  of  such  devices,  for  artistic  effect,  for  veri- 
similitude, or  for  lending  dignity  to  his  subject,  he  had  Boccaccio 
himself  as  a  distinguished  exemplar.  There  is  no  moral  question  in- 
volved. The  trick  justifies  itself  if  it  is  well  worked.  If  both  Chaucer 
and  Boccaccio  went  farther  in  this  way  than  a  scrupulous  modern 
would  feel  warranted  in  going,  they  had  two  valid  defences,  —  first, 
the  custom  of  mediaeval  writers,  and  second,  their  general  avowal  of 
indebtedness  to  somebody,  or,  in  other  words,  their  disclaimer  of 
originality. 

10.  Both  Gower  and  Strode  must  have  been  aware  that  Chaucer 
derived  the  story  of  Troilus  in  large  part  from  an  Italian  poem.  The 
fiction  of  a  reference  to  Lollius  in  the  Troilus  was  known  to  some  of 
Chaucer's  contemporaries  as  a  fiction,  and  hence  to  Lydgate  a  genera- 
tion or  so  later.  In  other  words,  it  was  not  a  dark  secret,  carefully 
locked  in  the  breast  of  an  anxious  plagiarist,  but  a  more  or  less  trans- 
parent literary  device,  as  to  which  neither  Chaucer  nor  his  associates 
and  followers  saw  any  reason  to  keep  silence  in  their  conversation. 

All  these  theses  appear  to  be  irrefutable,  and  in  their  light  we  are 
now  ready  to  discuss  certain  interesting  questions  that  have  suggested 


Chaucer's  Lollius  73 

themselves  to  the  curious  minds  of  us  moderns.  These  questions 
should  be  kept  sharply  distinct,  however,  from  the  theses  just  enu- 
merated; for  we  are  now  venturing  into  the  domain  of  conjecture. 
Our  guesses  may  be  more  or  less  probable,  but,  right  or  wrong,  they 
cannot  affect  the  soundness  of  the  most  pregnant  and  unforced  prop- 
ositions already  established. 

First  and  foremost,  did  Chaucer  originate  the  erroneous  notion  that 
one  Lollius  (a  real  name)  wrote  a  (lost)  history  of  the  Trojan  War  or, 
at  all  events,  a  (lost)  book  of  some  kind  on  the  matter  of  Troy  ? 

A  priori  one  would  answer  this  question  in  the  negative,  most  de- 
cidedly. It  is  seldom  possible  to  discover  the  actual  originator  of 
anything  —  especially  of  a  current  error.  Whatever  might  have  led 
Chaucer  to  make  this  mistake  would  have  been  just  as  likely  to  lead 
somebody  else  to  make  it  before  him.  The  mere  fact  that  Chaucer 
found  the  name  Lollius,  not  all  alone  by  itself,  but  in  a  context  that 
somehow  connected  it  with  Troy,  suggests  as  a  distinct  probability 
that  some  predecessor  had  similarly  discovered  it.  Finally,  the  fact 
that  Chaucer's  learned  friends  Gower  and  Strode  allowed  his  erroneous 
opinion,  published  in  The  House  of  Fame,  to  pass  without  challenge, 
and  suffered  him  to  utilize  the  error,  uncorrected,  as  a  part  of  the 
fiction  in  the  Troilus,  a  poem  dedicated  to  them  and  doubtless  dis- 
cussed with  them  in  the  process  of  composition  —  all  this  certainly 
suggests  that  they  shared  his  error,  and,  therefore,  that  this  was  a 
matter  of  common  misinformation  among  the  learned  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  fourteenth  century.  However,  the  question  whether 
Chaucer  originated  the  error  or  merely  adopted  it,  is  a  matter  of  no 
consequence.  If  one  prefers  to  regard  Chaucer  as  the  initial  mistaker, 
no  harm  can  be  done.  I  am  far  from  wishing  to  exonerate  the  poet, 
for  he  was  no  doctor  irrefragibilis.  He  did  make  blunders  now  and 
then.1  So  do  we  all.  One  mistake  more  or  less  counts  for  nothing  in 
his  record,  or  yours,  or  mine,  in  a  puzzle-headed  world. 

The  objection  that  we  cannot  find  the  statement  anywhere  before 
Chaucer  should  not  daunt  us  until  we  discover  the  precise  source  from 
which  he  drew  his  information  about  Trophee,2  about  the  Bret  Glas- 
curion,  about  Hermes  Ballenus,  about  Eleanor,  about  Lymote,3  and 

1  See  p.  80,  below.  8  House  of  Fame,  1208,  1273,  516,  1274. 

2  Monti's  Tale,  B  3307  (see  p.  60,  above). 


74  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

so  on.  It  makes  no  difference,  logically,  whether  the  information  in 
these  cases  is  correct  or  incorrect.  The  point  is,  that  Chaucer  derived 
it  from  some  source  that  we  cannot  trace  with  assurance  or  cannot 
trace  at  all.  In  other  words,  he  and  his  contemporaries  had  (as  we 
sometimes  forget)  sources  of  information  or  misinformation  which 
are  either  not  accessible  to  us,  having  perished,  or  which  our  anti- 
quaries have  not  yet  unearthed. 

Take  the  case  of  Hermes  Ballenus.  Here  the  reference  to  Ballenus 
has  been  traced  to  the  Roman  de  la  Rose,1  but  the  French  poem  does 
not  connect  him  with  Hermes.  Yet  Chaucer's  learning  abides  the 
touchstone.  He  has  in  mind  a  certain  wise  Belinous  who  found  a 
book  of  scientific  and  magical  secrets  under  a  statue  of  Hermes.  Where 
did  Chaucer  get  this  information?  A  question  as  yet  unanswerable. 
Yet  it  may  be  answered  any  day.  The  solution  may  lurk  unheeded 
in  the  margin  of  some  manuscript  of  the  Roman.  So  in  the  margin 
of  some  other  manuscript  of  something  or  other  was  perhaps  enshrined 
a  gloss  "  Lollius  maximus  scriptor  belli  Troiani."  We  have  not  yet 
garnered  all  the  sheaves  of  mediaeval  lore,  and  when  the  sheaves  are 
garnered,  the  gleanings  will  remain,  and  when  all  is  gleaned,  we  shall 
still  miss  what  has  perished. 

Another  instructive  example  is  that  of  Agathon.  This  person  may 
have  been  known  to  Chaucer  as  a  poet  from  Dante: 

Euripide  v'e  nosco,  ed  Antifonte, 
Simonide,  Agatone  ed  altri  piue 
Greci  che  gia  di  lauro  ornar  la  fronte; 2 

or  perhaps  from  Boccaccio's  Amoroso  Visione: 
Claudiano,  Persio,  ed  Agatone.* 

But  from  neither  of  these  places  could  he  have  got  the  information 
that  led  him  to  associate  Agathon  with  Alcestis  and  the  daisy  : 

No  wonder  is  that  love  hir  stellifye, 
As  telleth  Agaton,  for  hir  goodnesse.4 

1  1460 1  Meon  (Michel,  II,  118).    See  Skeat  on  House  of  Fame,  1273. 

2  Purg.  xxii,  106-108. 

3  v,  50  (MS.  note  by  Child  in  his  copy  of  Kissner,  Chaucer  in  seinen  Bezieh- 
ungen  zur  italienischen  Liter atur,  p.  9;  Koeppel,  Anglia,  XIV,  237). 

4  Legend  of  Good  Women,  A  513-514  (B  525-526). 


Chaucer's  Lollius  75 

This  may  have  been  a  chance  shot,  but  one  finds  it  hard  to  dodge  the 
inference  that  he  somehow  knew  of  Agathon  as  associated  with  a 
flower  or  flowers;  and  for  this  point  we  are  aware  of  no  source  that 
could  have  helped  him  except  Aristotle's  Poetics,1  which  he  could  not 
read. 

We  must  leave  the  question  undecided,  then,  whether  Chaucer  was 
the  initial  blunderer  in  the  Lollian  business.  For  convenience,  we 
may  speak  of  the  error,  in  what  follows,  as  Chaucer's,  though  proba- 
bility seems  to  favor  the  idea  that  he  was  adopting  some  traditional 
mistake. 

Chaucer  is  not  the  only  fourteenth-century  poet  who  puzzles  us  in 
this  fashion.  For  example,  I  should  much  like  to  know  where  Froissart 
got  his  names  in  the  pretty  story  of  Architeles  and  Orphane,2  which 
he  credits  to  "  a  wise  poet."  Orphane,  he  says,  was  "  serour  Dane," 
i.e.  "  Diana's  sister."  3  Now  Orphane  seems  to  be  a  corruption  of 
Automate,  who  really  was  the  wife  of  Architeles,  and  she  was  a  daughter 
of  Danaus.    But  Froissart  could  not  read  Pausanias.4 

It  is  quite  true  that  we  cannot  point  to  a  particular  place  in  which 
Chaucer  could  have  found  a  citation  of  "  Lollius  de  Bello  Troiano." 
Still,  we  can  easily  exhibit  sources  from  which  he  might  have  derived 
equally  remarkable  literary  lore.  We  know  where  he  might  have  found 
the  story,  on  the  authority  of  "Philosophus  ad  Maximum,"  that  a  com- 
mittee of  eminent  Romans,  representing  various  professions,  decided 
that  the  god  of  Clemency  was  to  be  their  chief  deity.5  We  know  where 
he  could  have  found  the  statement  that  Seneca  "  in  tragedia  quadam  " 
tells  how  Nero,  in  a  vision,  was  seen  in  hell  bathing  in  molten  gold  and 
inviting  a  crowd  of  lawyers  ("  venale  genus  hominum  ")  to  join  him.6 

1  ix,  p.  1451b  21  (Nauck,  Tragicorum  Graecorum  Fragmenta,  1889^.763).  Cf. 
Skeat,  III,  xxxii-xxxiv. 

2  Joli  Buisson,  2102  ff.  (Scheler,  II,  62  ff.). 

8  2 1 1 1 .  Perhaps  Dane  means  Daphne  here,  as  in  Froissart's  Espinette  Amoureuse, 
15695.  (Scheler, 1, 132-138,)  and  in  his  Joli  Buisson,  3156  (II,  94),  and  in  Chaucer; 
but  Dyane  is  mentioned  in  Buisson,  2159,  and  Chaucer  has  to  warn  his  readers 
not  to  confuse  "  Penneus  doughter  "  with  the  goddess  (Knight's  Tale,  A  2062- 
2064). 

4  vii,  1,  3.  Cf.  also  his  story  of  Narcissus  (Joli  Buisson,  3252  ff.,  Scheler,  II, 
96  ff.)  with  the  faoov  yvoipifios  tale  in  Pausanias,  ix,  31,  6. 

6  Ward,  Catalogue  of  Romances,  III,  109,  §  24. 

6  Crane,  Jacques  de  Vitry,  pp.  14,  148;  cf.  Ward.  Catalogue,  III,  135,  §  136. 


76  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

And  finally  —  not  to  multiply  examples  —  we  know  where  he  could 
have  found  an  account  of  the  celebrated  interview  between  Diogenes 
and  Alexander  credited  to  "  Saturnus  qui  illustrium  virorum  scripsit 
hystorias." l  On  the  whole,  then,  it  seems  rather  probable  that  the 
error  which  made  Lollius  an  authority  on  Troy  was  not  initially 
Chaucer's  —  that  he  picked  up  the  item  somewhere  among  the  mis- 
cellanea of  the  middle  ages. 

More  interesting  is  the  inquiry  whether  or  not  the  error  about 
Lollius  (be  it  Chaucer's  or  Anon.'s)  sprang  from  a  misunderstanding 
of  a  famous  passage  in  Horace  —  the  beginning  of  the  second  Epistle 
of  the  First  Book: 

Troiani  belli  scriptorem,  maxime  Lolli, 
Dum  tu  declamas  Romae,  Praeneste  relegi. 

This  theory  was  long  ago  proposed  by  Latham,2  and  has  met  with 
considerable  favor,  though  rejected  with  contumely  in  some  quarters. 
The  a  priori  case  for  Latham's  hypothesis  is  uncommonly  strong. 
For  (i)  the  initial  blunderer  did  not  invent  the  name  Lollius:  it  is  a 
real  name.  He  found  it  somewhere.  (2)  He  did  not  invent  the  idea 
that  Lollius  was  a  writer  on  the  Trojan  War.  He  found  that  idea,  as 
well  as  the  name,  somewhere.  The  chances  are,  of  course,  that  he  found 
both  the  name  and  the  notion  in  the  same  place  and  at  the  same  time; 
and  the  place  must  have  been  an  accessible  place.  Horace's  epistle 
fulfills  all  the  conditions,  and  fulfills  them  brilliantly.3  Reluctance 
to  accept  Latham's  idea  seems  to  arise  from  reluctance  to  accuse 
Chaucer,  or  anybody  else,  of  so  considerable  a  blunder.  Still,  some  one 
must  have  blundered  somehow  sometime,  —  for  without  a  blunder 
the  belief  that  a  Lollius  wrote  on  the  Trojan  War  could  not  have 
been  entertained  by  Chaucer  or  his  contemporaries,  —  and  we  shall 
see  presently  that  to  get  the  Horatian  verses  wrong  was  by  no  means 
difficult  or  discreditable. 

1  Ward,  III,  119,  §  9.  2  Athenaeum,  October  3,  1868.  No.  2136,  II,  433. 

8  Chaucer  never  mentions  Horace  byname,  though  he  uses  a  few  bits,  doubtless 
picked  up  at  secondhand.  Several  lines  of  this  Epistle,  however,  including  the  first 
four  verses,  are  quoted  in  John  of  Salisbury's  Polycraticus,  vii,  9  (ed.  Webb,  II, 
128),  as  Axon  remarked  (Notes  and  Queries,  9th  Series,  III,  224),  and  other  lines 
occur  elsewhere  in  the  same  treatise.  Chaucer  is  thought  to  have  known  this  work 
of  John's,  though  the  question  (I  think)  is  still  unsettled.  Cf .  Lowes,  Modern  Lan- 
guage Notes,  XXV,  87-89.  If  Chaucer  was  not  the  initial  blunderer,  this  point 
is  of  no  consequence. 


Chaucer1  s  Lollius  77 

To  accept  Latham's  conjecture  does  not  carry  the  obligation  to 
explain  precisely  how  the  error  came  about,  —  to  select,  in  other  words, 
that  one  among  several  possibilities  that  was  actually  the  process  into 
which  the  blunderer  was  betrayed.  The  more  possibilities  there  were, 
the  greater  the  chance  that  we  have  the  right  passage  before  us.  Some 
of  these  possibilities  we  may  now  review,  premising  that  maxime,  as 
a  mere  superlative  (not  Maxime  as  a  part  of  the  name)  must  underlie 
all  mediaeval  ways  of  interpreting  the  passage,  since  the  discovery 
that  the  Maximus  was  the  surname  of  Horace's  young  friend  is  rather 
modern. 

Ten  Brink  long  ago  conjectured  that  the  text  which  caused  the 
error  had  scriptorum  for  scriptorem  and  te  legi  for  relegi.1  Possible,  no 
doubt,  but  by  no  means  likely !  Nor  were  two  corruptions  necessary. 
Scriptorum  alone  would  have  sufficed,  for  the  passage  would  then  have 
seemed  to  mean:  "  O  Lollius,  greatest  of  writerston  the  Trojan  War, 
while  you  have  been  declaiming  [your  poem]  at  Rome,  I  have  read 
it  over  again  at  Praeneste."  Scriptor  for  scriptorem  would  have  had 
the  same  result. 

So  far  we  have  tacitly  assumed  that  Praeneste  would  have  been 
immediately  understood  by  a  mediaeval  reader  as  meaning  "  at  Prae- 
neste ";  but  that  is  a  very  large  assumption  indeed,  — particularly 
when  one  remembers  that  Chaucer  took  Via  Appia  for  the  name  of  a 
town  three  miles  from  Rome  on  the  strength  of  "  Vade  igitur  in  tertium 
miliarium  ab  urbe  via  quae  Appia  nuncupatur": 

"  Goth  forth  to  Via  Appia,"  quod  she, 

"  That  fro  the  toun  ne  stant  but  myles  three."  2 

Proper  names  are  ever  and  always  a  pitfall,  and  in  the  middle  ages  no 
reader,  lay  or  cleric,  could  hope  to  keep  his  foot  out  of  the  snare.  In 
estimating,  therefore,  the  chances  of  misinterpretation,  we  should  not 
forget  the  difficulties  offered  by  the  second  verse.  If  our  friend  the 
initial  blunderer  had  a  good  mediaeval  text  of  these  two  lines,  what  he 
read  was  not  nicely  punctuated  and  decked  out  with  enlightening 
capitals.    It  ran  as  follows: 

I  Scriptorem  belli  troiani  maxime  lolli 

dum  tu  declamas  rome  preneste  relegi. 
1  Chaucer,  Studien,  1870,  p.  87  2  Second  Nun's  Tale,  G  172-173- 


78  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

What  was  he  to  make  out  of  preneste?  Was  it  preneste  or  preueste? 
The  former  meant  nothing  to  him,  unless  he  happened  to  be  an  un- 
commonly good  geographer.  As  for  preueste,  what  was  that?  Could 
it  be  pre  ueste?  Hardly.  An  adverb,  then?  What  adverb?  And  so 
he  gives  up  preneste  or  preueste  as  a  whole.  But,  since  he  would  be 
eager  to  read  what  he  could,  and  was  constrained  to  let  the  rest  go  — 
as  we  all  do  in  corrupt  or  unintelligible  passages  —  he  would  have 
grasped  at  the  te  as  presumably  a  pronoun,  —  and  then  he  had  "  O 
greatest  Lollius,  I  have  read  you,  a  writer  on  the  Trojan  War,  over 
again,  while  you  have  been  declaiming  [your  poem]  at  Rome." 

Or  suppose  some  careless  reader  or  excerptor  ran  together  the  head- 
ing of  the  epistle  " Ad  Lollium"  or  "  Ad  Lollium  consularem"  or  "Ad 
Maximum  Lollium"  or  "Ad  Lollium  Maximum"1  with  the  initial 
words:  —  "Ad  Lollium  maximum  scrip torem  belli  Troiani."  Less 
than  that  has  often  raised  strange  spirits  from  the  mediaeval  deep. 
That  such  a  trick  had  in  fact  got  itself  played  before  Chaucer's  time 
is  an  ascertained  fact,  for  in  one  twelfth-century  manuscript  of  Horace 
the  title  of  the  poem  is  actually  "  Ad  lollium  scrip  torem." 2  This  is 
Burney  MS.  178  in  the  British  Museum.  The  fact  that  the  contents  of 
the  Epistle  are  in  large  part  a  compendium  of  Trojan  matters  must  not 
be  forgotten  in  weighing  the  chances  that  the  Lollian  error  originated 
somehow  from  a  misreading  or  misunderstanding  of  the  opening  lines. 

Even  if  there  were  no  more  to  be  said,  I  think  Latham's  hypothesis 
would  be  pretty  well  demonstrated  as  extremely  probable,  since,  as 
already  noted,  every  additional  possibility  increases  the  chance  that 
he  hit  upon  the  right  passage.  Yet  one  must  admit  that  the  conjec- 
tures so  far  considered  imply  a  further  error  in  passing  from  the  second 
line  to  what  follows,  since  in  verses  3  ff .  Horace  clearly  speaks  of  the 
"  writer  on  the  Trojan  War  "  in  the  third  person.  Let  us  see,  therefore, 
what  might  have  happened  to  some  merely  humanly  fallible  but  not 
abnormally  ignorant  or  careless  reader  ("even  as  you  or  I")  who  had 
a  correct  text  before  him,  who  knew  that  Praeneste  means  at  Pales- 
trina,  and  who  recognized  "  scrip  torem  belli  Troiani  "  as  Homer. 

Scriptorem  belli  Troiani,  maxime  Lolli, 
Dum  tu  declamas  Romae,  Praeneste  relegi. 

1  All  these  headings  occur  in  manuscripts. 

2  HauthaPs  Acron,  II,  374,  note.  I  have  had  the  heading  verified  at  the  Museum. 


Chaucer's  Lollius  79 

From  this  passage  our  hypothetical  reader  would  have  gathered  that 
the  Lollius  addressed  was  a  person  of  great  importance,  —  for  he 
could  not  have  known  that  Maxime  is  a  proper  name  here.  Fur- 
ther, as  many  readers  still  do,  he  would  inevitably  have  taken  scrips 
torem  as  the  object  as  well  of  declamas  as  of  relegi,  and  so  would 
have  arrived  at  the  opinion  that  the  person  addressed  was  engaged  in 
reciting  at  Rome  some  version  of  Homer  —  presumably,  since  he  was 
at  Rome,  a  Latin  version,  doubtless  of  his  own  composition.  Thus  the 
passage,  though  correctly  written  and  in  the  main  correctly  translated, 
would  have  seemed  to  him  to  bear  the  clear  meaning  that  there  once 
was  a  Roman,  in  ancient  times,  who  composed  and  recited  at  Rome 
a  Latin  poem,  of  much  importance  and  dignity,  founded  on  Homer, 
and  relating  the  main  events  in  the  Trojan  War,  with  which,  be  it 
remembered,  a  large  part  of  what  follows  in  the  Epistle  is  con/ 
cerned. 

"  Lollius  maximus  poeta  et  amicus  Horatii  Romae  declamabat 
versus  de  bello  Troiano  "  would,  I  think,  be  a  fit  summary  of  such 
an  observation;  and  nothing  more  would  be  wanted  to  make  current 
the  item  of  misinformation  which  Chaucer  picked  up  somewhere  and 
utilized  for  his  own  purposes.  I  am  not  asserting  that  this  is  precisely 
the  way  in  which  the  Lollian  error  sprang  from  the  Horatian  passage: 
my  point  is  merely  that  this  in  one  possible  way  —  and  that  it  re- 
quired no  error  in  text  or  enormous  blundering  in  translation.  Or 
suppose  some  one  referred,  quite  correctly,  to  "Horatius  ad  Lollium 
de  Bello  Troiano."  Such  a  reference  might  easily  have  given  rise  to 
"  Lollius  de  bello  Troiano  "  —  and  again  the  trick  is  done. 

Anything  that  may  have  tended  to  associate  the  name  of  Lollius 
with  the  Trojan  War  is  pertinent  in  this  inquiry.  We  may  note, 
therefore,  that  the  Ninth  Ode  of  Horace's  Fourth  Book  is  dedicated 
to  a  Lollius,  whom  the  middle  ages  could  hardly  be  expected  to  dis- 
tinguish sharply  from  him  of  the  Epistle,  and  that  much  of  the  ode, 
like  much  of  the  Epistle,  is  devoted  to  Homer  and  the  matter  of  Troy. 
It  is  humbly  submitted  that  if  a  mediaeval  scholar  read  this  ode  and 
the  Epistle,  and  inferred  therefrom  that  Lollius  wrote  something  on 
Troy,  the  error  was  not  so  surprising  as  that  of  Speght  when  he  dug 
out  Lollius  Urbicus  from  the  Augustan  History,  turned  him  into  a 
Lollius  of  Urbino,  and  —  though  he  was  expressly  declared  to  have 


80  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

written  a  history  "sui  temporis"  —  cheerfully  equated  him  with  the 
alleged  source  of  Chaucer's  Troilus.1 

Again,  suppose  the  following  scholium  of  the  pseudo-Acron  on  the 
ode  got  separated  from  the  text: 

Ad  Marcum  Lollium  scribit  consularem  adfirmans  immortalia  fu- 
tura  scripta  sua,  quamuis  ante  eum  sint  alii  meliores  poetae;  nam 
nee  Homeri  magnitudinem  obstare  quominus  Pindarus  et  alii  poetae, 
qui  post  eum  orti  sunt,  clari  essent.2 

A  careless  reader  might  easily  have  taken  sua  to  refer  to  Lollius,  not 
Horace*  and  so  Lollius'  reputation  as  a  poet  of  importance,  though 
inferior  to  Homer,  might  have  become  a  current  fact  of  mediaeval 
information.  The  mention  of  Homer  would  have  been  enough  to 
prompt  the  further  inference  that  Lollius  too  had  busied  himself  with 
the  tale  of  Troy.  The  name  of  Pindar  would  have  helped  rather  than 
hindered,  for,  as  we  know,  "  Pindarus  "  passed  in  the  middle  ages  as 
a  Latin  poet  who  had  translated  Homer  —  as  the  author,  in  short,  of 
the  extant  Bias  Latina.^ 

Until  some  positive  evidence  turns  up,  I  think  we  may  take  it  as 
pretty  well  established  that  the  Epistle  of  Horace,  assisted  perhaps 
by  the  ode  or  the  scholium  or  by  both,  is  the  authority  for  the  mediaeval 
notion  that  one  Lollius  was  a  writer  of  importance  on  the  Trojan  War. 

In  order  to  test  the  reasonableness  of  the  opinion  that  Chaucer  or 
some  predecessor  was  capable  of  misunderstanding  Horace's  lines  in 
the  manner  suggested  by  Latham,  we  could  cite  other  errors  of  the 
poet's,  fit  to  range  with  that  already  quoted  about  the  Appian  Way.5 
"  Partriches  winges  "  on  Fame's  feet,  from  Virgil's  "  pedibus  celerem 
et  pernicibus  alis,"  will  serve  for  one.6  The  error  about  Plato  (for 
Solomon)  and  "  his  book  Senior;  "  7  Brutus  and  Cassius  run  together 

1  See  p.  83,  below. 

2  Ed.  Hauthal,  I,  412  (cf.  415);  ed.  Keller,  I,  355. 

3  The  heading  of  the  ode — "Ad  Lollium  de  immortalitate  carminum  suorum  "  — 
may  have  helped  to  mislead. 

4  See,  for  summary  information,  Bahrens,  Poetae  Latini  Minor  es,  III  (1881), 
4-5.  I  do  not  see  why  the  attachment  of  Pindar's  name  to  this  text  in  the  middle 
ages  may  not  have  come  from  a  misunderstanding  of  this  same  gloss. 

5  P.  77,  above. 

6  House  of  Fame,  1391-1392. 

7  Canon's  Yeoman's  Tale,  G  1448  ff. 


Chaucer  }s  Lollius  81 

into  one  name,  so  that  "  Brutus  Cassius  "  becomes  the  ringleader  in 
the  conspiracy  against  Caesar,1  and,  per  contra,  Ascanius  and  lulus 
made  into  two  distinct  persons; 2  Busiris  confused  with  Diomedes  of 
Thrace;3  Titan  identified  with  Tithonus;4  Corns  (or  Thorus)  as  a 
seagod; 5  Marcia  (Marsyas)  losing  her  skin;6  "  Persi  regis"  trans- 
lated by  "  the  king  of  Perciens  " 7  —  these  and  many  other  venial  sins, 
familiar  to  every  student,  may  suffice  to  assure  us  that  Chaucer  was 
not  superior  to  human  frailty ?^" 

And  we  all  know  that  even  professional  scholars  in  the  middle  ages 
were  quite  unable,  from  the  circumstances  in  which  they  worked,  to 
avoid  what  seem  to  us  astounding  blunders.  Examples  are  hardly 
called  for,  but  one  set  may  be  entertaining.  Walter  Burley,  who  died 
about  the  time  of  Chaucer's  birth,  was  a  man  of  real  learning  who  en- 
joyed the  title  of  "  doctor  planus  et  perspicuus."  He  taught  philosophy 
at  Oxford,  and  is  said  to  have  been  for  a  time  the  tutor  of  Edward  III, 

1  Monk's  Tale,  B  3887  ff. 

2  House  of  Fame,  177-178.  This  may  be  real  learning,  however  (see  Roscher, 
s.  v.  lulus) . 

3  Monk's  Tale,  B  3293-3294.    See  Shannon,  Modern  Philology,  XI,  227-229. 

4  Troilus,  iii,  1464-1470  (see  p.  116,  below). 
6  Legend  of  Good  Women,  2422. 

6  House  of  Fame,  1229  ff.  Chaucer  never  could  have  understood  Dante's  cryptic 
utterance  "  quando  Marsia  traesti  Delia  vagina  delle  membra  sue  "  (Par.,  i,  20- 
21)  unless  he  had  known  the  story,  and  Ovid  (Met.,  vi,  383  [satyri],  384  [quern], 
and  392  [ilium])  makes  the  gender  clear.  Cf.  Teseide,  xi,  62:  "Nel  quale  si  vedea 
Marsia  sonando,  Se  con  Apollo  nel  sonar  provando." 

7  Boethius,  bk.  ii,  prose  2, 1.  47  (Skeat). 

8  As  illustrations  of  the  errors  which  a  poet  might  make  in  the  fourteenth  cen- 
tury, even  in  treating  of  commonplace  matters,  the  following  examples  would  be 
enlightening,  if  light  were  really  needed.  Froissart  makes  it  Proserpine  for  whom 
Orpheus  went  to  Hades:  she  could  not  return  with  him  because  she  had  eaten 
(Joli  Buisson,  3164-3191,  Scheler,  II,  94-95).  In  Le  TrSsor  Amoureux,  wrongly 
ascribed  to  Froissart,  Adonis  is  the  son  of  Venus  and  pursues  Atalanta  (17192., 
Scheler,  III,  190  ff.).  Froissart's  Enclimpostair,  son  of  Morpheus  (Paradys 
d' Amour,  28,  Scheler,  I,  2),  has  become  famous  through  Chaucer's  adoption  (Book 
of  the  Duchess,  167;  cf.  Englische  Studien,  XXVI,  321  ff.).  In  L'Orloge  Amoureux 
Tubulus  (apparently  Tibullus)  is  said  to  have  died  for  love:  "Ce  fu  pour  lui  une 
honnourable  fin  "  (1120-1130,  Scheler,  I,  85).  In  the  Joli  Buisson  Narcissus  dies 
for  love  of  Echo,  whose  face  he  thinks  he  sees  in  the  fountain  (3252  ff.,  Scheler, 
II,  96  ff.),  and  Cepheus  is  killed  by  falling  from  a  tree  which  he  had  climbed  to 
see  if  Hero  was  coming  (3216  ff.,  II,  95-96). 


82  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

and  later  of  the  Black  Prince.  He  certainly  enjoyed  the  royal  favor. 
One  of  his  most  popular  books  —  probably  compiled  as  a  university 
manual  —  was  the  Liber  de  Vita  et  Moribus  Philosophorum  Poetarum- 
que  Veterum.  Dr.  Knust,  who  has  edited  this  work,  gives  an  amusing 
list  of  some  of  the  curious  mistakes  that  it  contains.  Burley  confuses 
Epaminondas  with  Epimenides,  Isocrates  with  Socrates,  Xenophanes 
with  Xenophon,  Agesilaus  with  Arcesilaus,  Africanus  major  with 
Africanus  minor,  Cato  of  the  Distichs  and  Cato  the  Censor  with  Cato 
Uticensis,  Publius  (i.e.  Publilius)  Syrus  with  Publius  Terentius,  Pliny 
the  Elder  with  Pliny  the  Younger.1  In  his  chapter  on  Horace,  he  tells 
how  "  Oracius  Flaccus  poeta  illustris,"  when  he  was  pontifex  maximus 
and  was  dedicating  a  temple  to  Jupiter,  received  the  news  of  his  son's 
death,  but  did  not  allow  it  to  disturb  him  in  the  sacred  ceremony  — 
an  anecdote  which  should  stand  to  the  credit  of  Horatius  Pulvillus.2 
Titus  Livius  appears  in  Burley's  pages  as  "  historiographus  et  trage- 
diarum  scrip  tor,"  by  confusion,  of  course,  with  Livius  Andronicus.3 

We  can  come  nearer  home,  however.  Somebody  in  the  middle  ages 
blundered  about  Lollius  somehow:  that  is  beyond  dispute.  Is  it  in- 
credible that  the  blunder  should  have  come  from  the  Horatian  pas- 
sage ?  Let  us  test  the  question  again  —  this  time  by  reviewing  some 
of  the  mistakes  that  modern  scholars  have  made  in  discussing  the 
Lollian  problem  itself. 

In  the  Scriptores  Historiae  Augustae  two  distinct  persons  named 
Lollius  Urbicus  are  mentioned,  —  one  a  magistrate  and  general  of  the 
second  century  of  our  era,4  the  other  an  historian  of  the  third.5 

The  first  of  these  was  a  man  of  mark  in  his  day,  and  we  have  a  good 
deal  of  documentary  evidence  about  him.6  He  was  legatus  in  Britain 
in  the  reign  of  Antonius  Pius; 7  he  is  mentioned  by  Fronto  8  and 
Apuleius 9  as  a  contemporary;   and  there  are  at  least  six  inscriptions 

1  Gualteri  Burlaei  Liber  de  Vita  et  Moribus  Philosophorum,  pp.  400-401. 

2  Cap.  no,  ed.  Knust,  p.  350. 

8  Cap.  88,  p.  310.  *  Antoninus  Pius,  5. 

6  Antoninus  Diadumenus,  9. 

6  Von  Rohden  and  Dessau,  Prosopographia,  II,  297. 

7  "  [Antoninus]  per  legatos  suos  plurima  bella  gessit,  nam  et  Brittanos  per  Lol- 
lium  Urbicum  vicit  legatum  alio  muro  caespiticio  summotis  barbaris  ducto,"  etc. 
(Ant.  Pius,  5). 

8  Ad  Amicos,  ii,  7.  9  De  Magia,  2. 


Chaucer's  Lollius  83 

that  concern  him,  —  two  Roman,1  two  British,2  and  two  African.3 
One  of  these,  which  relates  to  the  vallum  of  Antoninus  (Graham's 
Dyke),  has  long  been  familiar  to  archaeologists,  and  was  discussed  by 
the  admirable  Horseley  in  1732.4 

The  second  Lollius  Urbicus  is  known  only  from  a  single  passage  in 
the  Life  of  Diadumenus  ascribed  to  Lampridius,  which,  however, 
suffices  to  prove  that  he  lived  in  the  reigns  of  Macrinus  and  Helio- 
gabalus,  and  that  he  wrote  a  "  history  of  his  own  time."  5  This  per- 
sonage was  introduced  into  English  literary  history,  as  Chaucer's 
Lollius,  by  Speght,  who,  in  the  Folio  of  1598,  included  him  in  the  list 
of  authors  appended  to  his  Glossary  as  "  Lollius,  an  Italian  Histori- 
ographer, borne  in  the  citie  of  Vrbine."  6  Urbicus,  to  be  sure,  is  a 
derivative  of  urbs,  and  is  not  a  synonym  for  Urbinas,  "of  Urbino," 
but  that  made  no  difference:  Speght's  error  became  current.  Dr. 
Timothy  Thomas,  in  1721,  added  some  learned  material  to  Speght's 
note,  and,  having  consulted  the  Scriptores  Historiae  Augustae,  in- 
cluded Lollius  in  the  list  of  authors  appended  to  the  Glossary  to  Urry's 
Chaucer  as  "an  Italian  Historiographer  born  at  Urbino,  who  lived 
under  the  Emperors  Macrinus  and  Heliogabalus,  in  the  beginning  of 
the  Third  Century,"  remarking  that  he  "is  said  to  have  written  the 
History  of  his  own  Time,  and  also  the  Life  of  the  Emperor  Diadumenus 
the  Son  of  Macrinus.'''1  This  note  not  only  repeats  Speght's  mis- 
translation of  Urbicus  (as  if  it  were  Urbinas),  but  involves  a  wrong 
inference  from  the  words  of  Lampridius.  Lollius  Urbicus  did  write  a 
"  History  of  his  Own  Time,"  which  Lampridius  cites  for  certain  details 
about  Diadumenus,  but  there  is  no  foundation  for  the  statement  that 
he  also  wrote  a  biography  of  that  boy-emperor;   whatever  he  had  to 

1  C.I.L.  VI,  i,  6  (No.  28);  VI,  ii,  1410  (No.  10707). 

2  Hiibner,  C.I.L.,  VII,  180,  201,  Nos.  1041,  11 25. 

3  Wilmanns,  C.I.L.,  VIII,  i,  607,  Nos.  6705,  6706. 

4  Britannia  Romana,  pp.  197-198  (cf.  pp.  50,  51).    This  is  Hubner's  No.  1125. 

6  The  author  of  the  Life  cites  Lollius  Urbicus  for  details  about  the  murder  of 
Diadumenus  given  "  in  historia  sui  temporis."    This  murder  took  place  A.D.  218. 

6  Sig.  Bbbb.  ii,  v°  (ed.  1602,  sig.  Uuu,  iiii,  leaf  4,  v°;  ed.  1687,  sig.  Ssss,  v°). 

7  A  short  Account  of  some  of  the  Authors  cited  by  Chaucer,  appended  to  the  Glos- 
sary in  Urry's  Chaucer,  1 721,  p.  80.  Perhaps  Dr.  Thomas  went,  not  to  the  Scrip- 
tores,  but  to  Gerard  Vossius,  De  Historicis  Latinis,  bk.  ii,  ch.  2  (2d  ed.,  165 1, 
p.  176),  whose  account  of  Lollius,  however,  is  accurate. 


84  George  Lyman  Kittredg6 

say  on  the  subject  was  obviously  contained  in  this  same  Historia  sui 
Temporis. 

Warton,  in  1774,  remarked  that  Chaucer's  Troilus  "  is  said  to  be 
formed  on  an  old  history,  written  by  Lollius,  a  native  of  Urbino."  l 
But  it  does  not  appear  that  he  accepted  Urbicus  and  Urbinas  as 
synonymous.  At  all  events,  he  expressly  states  that  "  Lollius  Urbi- 
cus," the  historian  of  the  third  century,  "  could  not  be  Chaucer's 
Lollius."  2  He  makes  an  odd  mistake,  however,  when  he  says:  "  It 
is  extraordinary,  that  Du  Fresne,  in  the  Index  Auctorum,  used  by  him 
for  his  Latin  glossary,  should  mention  this  Lollius  Urbicus  of  the  third 
century,"  none  of  whose  works,  as  Warton  "  apprehends,"  remain.2 
It  would  indeed  be  extraordinary  if  Du  Cange  had  pretended  to  use 
this  lost  author.  The  truth  is,  he  does  nothing  of  the  kind.  His  Index 
Auctorum,  as  he  states  expressly,  is  meant  to  include  all  the  writers 
"  inferioris  Latinitatis  "  that  he  knew  of,  both  those  whom  he  used 
in  his  Glossarium  and  those  whom  he  did  not;3  and  the  way  in  which 
he  mentions  Lollius  Urbicus4  makes  it  quite  clear  that  he  had  no 
knowledge  of  that  historian  except  what  was  afforded  by  the  passage 
of  Lampridius  already  mentioned.5  Another  strange  remark  of  War- 
ton's  is  the  assertion  that  "Boccac[c]io  himself,  in  the  Decameron, 
mentions  the  story  of  Troilus  and  Cressida  in  Greek  verse"; 6  which, 
adds  Warton,  "  I  suppose  had  been  translated  by  some  of  the  fugitive 
Greeks  with  whom  he  was  connected,  from  a  romance  on  that  subject." 
I  venture  to  suggest  that  this  remark  is  quite  as  extraordinary — all 
circumstances  considered  —  as  Chaucer's  erroneous  registration  of 
Lollius  as  an  historian  of  the  Trojan  War. 

1  History  of  English  Poetry,  1774,  §  14, 1,  384. 

2  Ibid.,  note  a. 

*  "  Caeteros  illaudatos  inferioris  Latinitatis  Scriptoribus  laudatis  adjungendos  " 
(Glossarium,  ed.  1681,  cols.  78-79). 

4  "  Lollius  Urbicus,  Historicus,  vix.  sub  Macrino  and  Heliogabalo.  Vide  Vos- 
sium  "  (col.  129).  Gerard  Vossius,  De  Historicis  Latinis,  ii,  2  (2d  ed.,  1651,  p.  176), 
refers  to  Lampridius  as  our  only  source  of  knowledge  on  this  writer. 

6  It  is  only  fair  to  say  that  Warton  contributes  some  really  valuable  information 
about  the  Troilus  material. 

6  I,  351  (cf.  384).  See  Decameron,  6th  day,  introduction:  "E  Dioneo  insieme 
con  Lauretta  di  Trojolo  e  di  Criseida  cominciarono  a  cantare."  That  is  all.  Cf. 
Warton's  Emendations  and  Additions  to  Vol.  I,  p.  385  (in  Vol.  II);  Wilkins,  Boc- 
caccio Studies,  p.  52. 


Chaucer's  Lollius  85 

From  Speght's  and  Dr.  Thomas's  assertion  and  Warton's  hesitating 
remarks,  the  supposed  Lollius  of  Urbino  (who  owes  his  existence  solely 
to  Speght's  misunderstanding  of  the  adjective  Urbicus),  became  al- 
most inseparably  attached  to  Chaucer.  The  eminent  Heyne,  the 
philological  dictator  of  Germany  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  actually  translated  the  name  "  Lollius  of  Urbino  "  into  Latin, 
oblivious  of  the  fact  that  it  was  a  mere  blunder,  and  asserted,  in  his 
famous  edition  of  Virgil,  that  Chaucer  derived  his  Troilus  from  "  Lol- 
lius Urbinas  et  Guido  de  Colonna."  l 

Joly,  in  referring  to  this  error  of  Heyne's,  makes  a  mistake  of  his  own, 
for  he  says:  —  "  II  est,  par  ce  passage  meme,  evident  que  Heyne  ne 
parle  de  Lollius  que  sur  l'autorite  de  Chaucer."  2  Certainly  Heyne  did 
not  derive  his  Urbinas  from  Chaucer,  who  does  not  associate  Lollius 
with  that  city  or  with  any  city  —  except  Troy !  One  suspects  that  Joly 
took  Urbicus  as  a  synonym  of  Urbinas  anyhow,  for,  in  connection  with 
his  quotation  from  Heyne,  he  remarks  that  Schoell  mentions  the  non- 
existent "  Lollius  d'Urbin  "  as  a  real  author.  Now  the  fact  is  that 
Schoell  knows  nothing  of  any  Lollius  of  Urbino.  His  entry  concerns 
only  the  historian  Lollius  Urbicus  and  is  perfectly  sober  and  accurate: 
"  Lollius  Urbicus,  auteur  d'un  histoire  de  son  temps,  c'est-a-dire  de 
celui  de  Macrin  et  d'Eliogabale."  3 

A  recent  Romance  scholar  of  repute,  Marcus  Landau,  in  an  attempt 
to  correct  some  of  the  old  errors,  has  embroiled  the  whole  subject 
afresh.  According  to  Landau,  "  Dryden  confused  [Chaucer's]  Lollius 
with  Lollius  Urbicus,  the  author  of  a  lost  work  on  the  Emperor  Severus, 
and  made  out  of  him  a  Lollius  of  Urbino,  who  according  to  him,  was 
Chaucer's  and  Shakspere's  source."  4   Now  what  Dryden  wrote  in  the 

1  "  Obseruabimus  tandem  recentiorum  quoque  fabularum  factum  esse  Troilum 
argumentum,  Lollii  quidem  Vrbinatis  et  Guidonis  de  Colonna.  Vnde  Chaucer 
duxit  suum  Troilum  et  Cressida  "  (Excursus  xvii  on  Aeneid  i).  This  passage  does 
not  occur  in  the  first  edition  (1771,  II,  127-128)  or  the  second  (1787,  II,  160-161), 
but  makes  its  first  appearance  in  the  third  (Leipzig,  1800,  II,  212;  1803,  II,  178). 
It  is  also  found  in  the  fourth  edition  (Wagner's),  1832,  II,  250,  and  in  Lemaire's 
edition,  1819,  II,  203.  The  London  "third  edition"  (1793),  II,  i55"IS6  does  not 
contain  it. 

2  Benottde  Sainte-More,  I,  217,  note  1. 

3  Histoire  abregee  de  la  litter attire  romaine,  Paris,  1815,  III,  146. 

4  "  Chaucer  also,  der  ebenfalls  ein  Epos  von  Troilus  und  Cressida  geschrieben, 
gibt  es  fur  die  Uebersetzung  des  lateinischen  Werks  eines  gewissen  Lollius  aus. 


86  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

preface  to  his  own  Troilus  and  Cressida  (1679),  is  bad  enough,  but  it 
does  not  accord  with  Landau's  account.  "The  Original  story,"  says 
Dryden,  "  was  Written  by  one  Lollius,  a  Lombard,  in  Latin  verse,  and 
Translated  by  Chaucer  into  English:  intended  I  suppose  a  Satyr  on 
the  Inconstancy  of  Women:  I  find  nothing  of  it  among  the  Ancients; 
not  so  much  as  the  name  once  Cressida  mention' d.  Shakspear,  .  .  . 
in  the  Aprenticeship  of  his  Writing,  modePd  it  into  that  Play,  which 
is  now  call'd  by  the  name  of  Troilus  and  Cressida."  Certainly  it  can- 
not be  alleged  that  Dryden  made  a  Lollius  of  Urbino  out  of  Lollius 
Urbicus.  He  says  not  a  word  about  Lollius  Urbicus,  and  does  not 
mention  Urbino,  but  declares  that  Chaucer's  Lollius  was  a  Lombard  — 
and  Urbino  (as  I  suppose  Landau  knew)  is  not  in  Lombardy.  Dry- 
den's  information  might  all  have  been  derived  from  Chaucer's  Troilus 
itself  except  the  statement  that  Lollius  was  a  Lombard.  This  he 
doubtless  inferred  from  .Speght's  Life  of  Geffrey  Chaucer  in  the  folio 
of  1598,  where  we  read:  "  Troilus  and  Creseid  called  Throphe  in  the 
Lumbard  tongue,  translated:  not  verbatim,  but  the  Argument  thence 
taken,  and  most  cunningly  amplified  by  Chaucer."  l  Speght's  lan- 
guage, indeed,  is  echoed  by  Dryden  in  the  Preface  to  his  Fables  (1700), 
when  he  remarks  that  "  Troilus  and  Cressida  was  written  by  a  Lom- 
bard Author;  but  much  amplified  by  our  English  Translatour,  as  well 
as  beautified."  2  In  the  folio  Chaucer  of  1602  Speght's  note  appears 
in  the  following  form:  "  Troilus  and  Creseid  called  Throphe  in  the 
Lumbard  tongue,  was  translated  out  of  Latin,  as  in  the  preface  to  the 
second  booke  of  Troilus  and  Creseid  he  confesseth  in  these  wordes: 

"  To  euery  louer  I  me  excuse, 
That  of  no  sentiment  I  this  endite, 
But  out  of  Latin  in  my  tonge  it  write."  s 

Miss  Hammond4  also  seriously  mistakes  Dryden.  She  writes: 
"  Dryden,  in  the  preface  to  his  '  Troilus  and  Cressida,'  said  that '  the 

Diesen  sonst  unbekannten  Lollius  verwechselte  Dryden  mit  Lollius  Urbicus,  dem 
Verfasser  eines  verloren  gegangenen  Werks  liber  Kaiser  Severus  und  machte  aus 
ihm  einen  Lollius  aus  Urbino,  der  Chaucers  und  Shakespeare's  Quelle  gewesen  sein 
sollte  "  (Landau,  Giovanni  Boccaccio,  1877,  pp.  91-92). 

1  Sig.  c,  i,  r°.  "  sig-  B> 

8  Sig.  c.  j.  v°  (so  also  in  the  folio  of  1687,  sig.  b  v°). 

4  Chaucer,  a  Bibliographical  Manual,  1908,  p.  95.  I  take  occasion  once  more 
to  express  my  sense  of  the  high  value  of  this  indispensable  book. 


Chaucer's  Lollius  87 

original  story  was  written  by  one  Lollius,  in  Lombard  verse,' "  whereas 
Dryden  says  distinctly,  "  by  one  Lollius,  a  Lombard,  in  Latin  verse." 
"  This  he  derived,  it  is  probable,"  she  adds,"  from  the  note  in  Speght's 
glossary  —  '  Lollius,  an  Italian  Historiographer  borne  in  the  citie  of 
Urbine.' "  As  to  this  we  note  (1)  that  this  remark  is  not  in  Speght's 
Glossary,  but  in  the  list  of  authors  appended  to  his  glossary,  and  (2) 
that  Speght's  note  does  not  say  that  Lollius  wrote  in  Lombard  verse; 
—  does  not,  indeed,  mention  Lombardy  at  all. 

Miss  Hammond  also  makes  several  mistakes  in  her  account  of 
Lollius  Urbicus  the  historian  cited  in  the  Life  of  Diadumenus  in  the 
so-called  Augustan  History.  In  the  first  place,  she  says  that  this  life 
was  "  written  about  400  a.d."  But  soon  after  she  remarks  that  the 
Augustan  History  "  was  written  during  the  reigns  of  Diocletian  and 
Constantine,"  that  is,  a.d.  284-337.  Perhaps,  then,  400  is  a  misprint 
for  300.  Further,  she  remarks  that,  "  as  the  Augustan  History  was 
written  during  the  reigns  of  Diocletian  and  Constantine,  Lollius  has 
been  considered  as  of  the  third  century."  This,  however,  is  not  the 
reason  for  so  dating  him.  The  reason  is  that  the  language  of  the  Life 
of  Diadumenus  (no  matter  when  the  Augustan  History  was  written) 
implies  beyond  the  possibility  of  misapprehension  that  this  Lollius 
was  living  at  the  time  of  the  murder  of  Diadumenus,  which  took  place 
in  218. 

But  this  is  not  all.  Professor  Lounsbury,  in  giving  an  account  of  the 
Lollius  legend,  makes  a  mistake  of  his  own.  He  says  that  the  Lollius 
Urbicus  who  is  mentioned  by  Capitolinus  as  conquering  the  Britons  in 
the  reign  of  Antoninus  Pius  and  the  Lollius  Urbicus  who  is  cited  by 
Lampridius  as  having  written  a  history  of  his  own  times,  are  "  pre- 
sumably the  same  man,"  ignoring  the  fact  that  they  lived  in  different 
centuries,  and  adds  that  "  nothing  has  ever  been  heard  of  him  or  it 
beyond  these  two  brief  references."  l  Yet,  as  we  have  seen,  much  has 
been  heard  of  the  elder  Lollius  Urbicus  besides  the  reference  to  him 
in  the  so-called  Capitolinus.  Further,  Lounsbury  appears  to  accept 
"  of  Urbino  "  as  a  good  translation  of  the  adjective  Urbicus.  It  would 
be  hard  to  find  a  more  striking  example  of  the  way  in  which  bits  of 
information  and  misinformation  combined  get  adrift  in  the  learned 
world. 

1  Studies  in  Chaucer,  II,  405-406. 


88  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

The  supposition  that  Chaucer  blundered  in  reading  Horace  "  in- 
volves," says  Lounsbury,  "  the  .  .  .  assumption  that  a  man  who  was 
sufficiently  familiar  with  Latin  to  translate  with  reasonable  accuracy 
a  philosophical  work,  written  in  that  tongue,  was  capable  of  confusing 
in  an  easy  sentence  forms  so  widely  distinct  as  those  of  the  genitive 
and  the  vocative  case."1  This  statement  involves  a  curious  oversight. 
If  Chaucer  identified  Lolli  in  Horace's  line  with  scriptorem,  what  he 
confused  was  certainly  not  the  genitive  and  the  vocative,  —  and  any- 
how, the  genitive  and  the  vocative  of  Lollius  are  not  "widely  distinct" 
forms.  Hamilton  makes  a  different  mistake  about  cases  when  he 
defines  Lounsbury 's  "  main  premise  "  as  the  proposition  that  Chaucer 
"  would  not  have  made  the  slip  of  mistaking  a  genitive  for  an  abla- 
tive." 2    No  ablative  or  genitive  is  involved  in  the  question. 

May  we  not  argue  that  these  errors  of  Lounsbury  and  Hamilton 
are  quite  as  unlikely  to  have  been  committed  by  those  scholars  as  the 
error  suggested  by  Latham  was  unlikely  to  have  been  committed  by 
Chaucer  or  some  forerunner  ? 

Even  Dr.  Latham's  note,  which  is  printed  a  plain  type  in  a  modern 
journal,3  has  been  more  than  once  unintentionally  misrepresented,  as 
if  he  thought  Chaucer  were  the  initial  blunderer.  What  he  suggests, 
on  the  contrary,  is  clearly  that  the  mistake  had  been  previously  made 
by  somebody  unknown,  and  that  "  by  the  time  of  Chaucer"  Lollius 
had  come  to  be  regarded,  on  the  basis  of  that  blunder,  as  a  writer  on 
the  Trojan  War.4  It  is  rather  odd  that  Rossetti  himself,  in  1873, 
appears  to  make  this  mistake  with  regard  to  Latham,5  though  Latham's 
letter  to  the  Athenaeum  was  written  in  reply  to  a  theory  of  Rossetti's 
published  in  the  immediately  preceding  number  of  this  journal,6  and 

1  Studies  in  Chaucer,  II,  409-410. 

2  The  Indebtedness  of  Chaucer's  Troilus  and  Criseyde  to  Guido  delle  Colonne's 
Historia  Trojana,  p.  40,  note. 

3  Athenaeum,  No.  2136,  Oct.  3,  1868,  II,  433. 

4  "  My  own  view,  and  that  I  believe  of  others,  is  .  .  .  that  by  the  time  of 
Chaucer  the  name  of  the  person  there  addressed  had  become  attached  to  the 
person  written  about." 

6  "  It  appears  to  me  that  the  most  reasonable  .  .  .  suggestion  is  that  made 
...  by  Dr.  R.  G.  Latham  —  that  Chaucer  has,  by  some  blunder  or  confusion, 
got  the  name  Lollius  out  of  Horace's  line  "  {Chaucer's  Troylus  and  Cryseyde  com- 
pared with  Boccaccio's  Filostrato,  1873,  p.  vii). 

6  Athenceum,  No.  2135,  Sept.  26,  1868. 


Chaucer's  Lollius  89 

though  Rossetti  followed  Latham  in  the  very  next  number 1  with  a 
communication  accepting  the  doctor's  theory  and  abandoning  his  own. 
Miss  Hammond  is  under  the  same  misapprehension.2  She  adds  the 
remark:  "Note  that  already  Bradshaw  (see  Prothero's  Memoir,  p. 
216)  had  made  the  same  suggestion  as  did  Latham."  But  the  passage 
in  Prothero  records  no  such  suggestion. 

We  may  conclude  with  a  blunder  by  another  distinguished  scholar, 
pertinent  here,  because  its  perpetrator  is  accepting  Latham's  con- 
jecture. "  La  invenzione  del  nome  Lollio  Urbico  fu  suggerita  al  Chau- 
cer probabilmente,"  writes  Hortis,  "dalT  ode  oraziana:  Trojani  belli 
scrip torem  maxime  Lolli  etc." 3  As  to  this  there  are  four  observations 
to  make:  —  (1)  Chaucer  does  not  speak  of  Lollius  Urbicus;  (2)  if  he 
did,  he  would  not  be  inventing  the  name,  for  it  is  a  real  name,  borne 
by  at  least  two  historical  personages;  (3)  Lollius  Urbicus  could  not 
be  invented  by  anybody  on  the  basis  of  the  Horatian  line;  (4) 
Hbrace's  epistle  is  not  an  ode. 

I  have  not  undertaken  to  catalogue  the  errors  of  scholars  with  re- 
gard to  the  Troilus  and  its  sources,  but  simply  to  select,  from  the  mass 
of  familiar  material,4  a  number  of  mistakes  about  Lollius  —  not  mere 
instances  of  poor  judgment,  or  of  wild  theorizing  on  moot  points,  but 
plain  honest  homespun  errors  about  matters  of  fact.  The  point  is,  of 
course,  that  these  blunders  have  been  made  —  and  made  about  Lollius 
—  not  by  persons  who,  in  the  days  of  manuscripts,  were  casually 
acquiring  miscellaneous  information,  or  groping  about  in  their  mem- 
ories for  things  once  seen  but  now  beyond  the  scope  of  verification, 
but  by  modern  specialists  engaged  in  studying  the  Lollian  problem 
with  printed  texts  and  printed  books  of  reference  at  their  elbows. 

My  brief  review  has  been  undertaken  in  a  spirit  of  humility,  not  of 
censoriousness.  Indeed,  the  very  name  of  Lollius  seems  to  have  acted 
as  a  spell.  A  deceptive  glamour  attends  it.  Hardly  anybody  has 
approached  the  charmed  circle  without  losing  his  way  and  wandering 
about,  pixy-led,  mistaking  bushes  for  bears.    I  can  claim  no  exemption 

1  No.  2137,  Oct.  10, 1868,  II,  465. 

2  P.  96. 

•  Studj  suite  Opere  Latine  del  Boccaccio,  p.  581,  note  1. 

4  See  the  summaries  of  Hamilton  (The  Indebtedness  of  Chaucer's  Troilus  and 
Creseyde  to  Guido  delle  Colonne's  Eistoria  Trojana,  1903,  pp.  1-50)  and  Miss 
Hammond  (Chaucer:  a  Bibliographical  Manual,  1908,  pp.  94 ff.,  etc.). 


go  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

from  the  ban,  and  feel  little  doubt  that  I  have  blundered  somewhere. 
Several  bad  mistakes,  indeed,  I  have  already  cut  out  of  my  manu- 
script. Others,  I  trust,  remain  to  help  in  establishing  the  proposition 
that  I  am  endeavoring  to  prove  —  to  wit,  the  proposition  that  a 
mediaeval  error  in  dealing  with  the  Horatian  passage  is  very  probable. 

A  hitherto  unnoted  source  from  which,  by  easy  processes  of  error 
and  confusion  —  such  as  were  inevitable  in  the  middle  ages  —  the 
name  of  Lollius  Maximus  may  have  got  abroad  as  that  of  an  authority 
on  ancient  history  (or  the  name  of  Lollius  as  that  of  a  very  great  au- 
thority on  the  same),  is  the  account  given  of  Damophilus  in  Suidas' 
lexicon.  Among  the  works  of  this  "  philosopher  and  sophist "  are 
mentioned,  3>i\6/3ij3Xos,  irp&ros  irepl  in^toKTTjTcov  /3t/3\twj>,  irpbs  AoWlov 
Mcl^l/jlov,  Hepl  (3iov  apxaiuv  /ecu  erepa  irapiToWa.1  From  this  is  appears 
that  Damophilus  was  credited  (i)  with  a  work  entitled  <l>iX6/3i/3Xos  ad- 
dressed or  dedicated  to  Lollius  Maximus,  and  (2)  with  another  work 
"On  the  Life  of  the  Ancients."  Now  it  would  not  have  been  a  matter 
of  much  difficulty  for  the  words  AoWlov  Ma&nov  irepl  fiiov  apx^lcav  to 
get  shuffled  together  in  somebody's  mind,  with  the  result  that  Lollius 
came  to  be  regarded  as  a  writer  on  the  life  of  the  ancients,  or  even  as  a 
biographer  of  the  men  of  old.2  This  is  suggested  merely  as  something 
possible  enough.  Damophilus,  the  Bithynian,  is  cited  as  a  curious 
antiquary  by  Julian,3  and  there  may  have  been  accounts  of  him  in 
Latin  as  well  as  in  Greek. 

In  conclusion,  let  us  not  forget  that  there  was  once  a  Lollius  who 
did  treat  of  the  Trojan  War  at  least  twice,  though  in  the  briefest 
fashion.  This  was  Lollius  Bassus,  of  the  first  century  of  our  era.  His 
epigrams  on  this  subject  are  worth  quoting.  The  first  is  a  compliment 
to  Rome: 

1  Suidas,  s.  v.  AanixpCKos,  I,  11 69-1 170,  Bernhardy. 

2  A  part  of  this  error  has  certainly  been  perpetrated  by  Philip  Smith.  In  Smith's 
Dictionary,  I,  937,  he  speaks  of  this  work  of  Damophilus  as  "  On  the  Lives  of  the 
Ancients  (irepl  (3Uav  dpxaW)." 

3  Misopogon,  p.  358  C.  Suidas  says  of  Damophilus,  lv  AvedptyaTo  'lov\iav6s. 
This  is  thought  to  be  P.  Salvius  Julianus,  consul  A.  D.  175  (von  Rohden  and  Des- 
sau, Prosopographia,  III,  166).  Schwartz  in  Pauly-Wissowa  says  that  "  Damo- 
philos  .  .  .  war  nach  Suidas  Pflegesohn  des  M.  Salvius  Iulianus  "  —  a  remark  in 
which  he  certainly  goes  beyond  his  text.  But  nobody  can  touch  Lollius,  even 
secondarily,  without  suffering  for  it. 


Chaucer  }s  Lollius  91 

"ApptjKTOi  Moip&v  Trvparrjv  kacppayicrav  op/cot 
r$  $pvyi  irap  /3ayzc£  tt)v  Hpiapov  Ovairiv. 

'AXXd  vol,  Kivda,  aroXos  lepds  'IraXdv  fjdrj 
opfAOV  ex«t,  TrarpTis  <f>poipiov  ovpav'vqs. 

'Es  na\6v  a>Xero  Tvpyos  6  Tpcoios-  17  7  dp  &  #7rXots 
ryyepdrj  Koapov  iraprds  avavaa  7r6Xts.x 

The  second  might  almost  be  called  a  warning  against  the  hidden  rocks 
and  reefs  of  the  Lollian  controversy: 

Ov\6pevat,  vrjecrai  Ka<f>rjpL8es,   at  irore  vbarov 

CSkkaad'   ^EWrjvcav  /cat  cttoKov  'IXiodev, 
irvpabs  ore  xj/evaras  x&ovirjs  dvcxpep&repa  vvkt6s 

r)\J/e  crk\a}  TV<f>\ij  6'  edpape  iracra  Tpoins 
XOLpadas  h  Trkrpas,  Aavaols  irakiv  "IXios  aXXi; 

€7rX€ro,  Kal  8eK6T0vs  kxBpoTkp-q  iroXepov. 
Kat  ti)v  pep  t6t'  livepaav'  aviKTjros  5t  Kacprjpevs, 

NaiwXie'  <rol  yap  irav  'EXXds  enXavae  daKpv.* 

Let  nobody  accuse  me  of  maintaining  that  Chaucer's  Lollius  has 
anything  to  do  with  Lollius  Bassus  —  or  that  Chaucer  was  a  student 
of  the  Anthology  —  or  even  that  the  pretty  epigram  of  Agathias  on 
the  swallows 3  is  the  source  of  certain  stanzas  of  similar  tenor  in  the 
Troilus.4  Yet,  after  all,  such  theories  on  my  part  would  but  add  one 
more  to  the  long  list  of  shipwrecks  on  this  fatal  cliff! 

1  Anth.  Pal.,  ix,  236  (Diibner,  II,  46-47).  3  v,  237. 

2  Anth.  Pal.,  ix,  289  (Diibner,  II,  58). 


02 


George  Lyman  Kittredge 


APPENDIX  I 


On  Chaucer's  References  to  His  Sources  in  the  Troilus 

In  the  early  part  of  my  paper  I  made  the  following  postulate: 
"  Chaucer  takes  quite  particular  pains  to  convey  the  impression  that 
his  Troilus,  from  beginning  to  end,  is  a  faithful  translation  from  the 
Latin  work  of  Lollius,  without  any  material  additions  either  from  other 
sources  or  from  his  own  pen  "  (p.  54) ;  and  I  promised  to  prove  this 
proposition  in  an  appendix.  I  regret  the  necessity,  but  am  not  to 
blame  for  it.  The  case  is  as  clear  as  Chaucer  could  make  it,  but  can 
only  be  established  by  going  through  the  poem  in  the  order  in  which 
it  is  written;  for  the  evidence  is  cumulative,  and  the  effect  of  any 
single  mention  of  Lollius  or  "  myn  auctor,"  or  of  any  single  allusion 
to  him,  may  extend  far  beyond  the  immediate  context. 

The  following  table  gives  a  list  of  all  the  references  or  allusions  to 
a  source,  along  with  four  or  five  passages  that  have  no  significance 
but  are  included  for  the  sake  of  completeness. 


Si  132-133. 

i,  141-147- 

i,  159-161. 

i,  393-399  (394)- 

i,  492-497  (495). 

ii,  8-49,(13-14,  18,  49). 

ii,  100-108. 

ii,  699-700. 

ii,  1219-1220. 

ii,  1564-1568. 

ii,  IS9S-I596. 

ii,  1 700-1 701. 

iii,  39-49  H  ii,  13-14  with  iii,  43"44)- 

iii,  90-91. 

iii,  442-455- 

iii,  470. 

iii,  491-504  (502-503) 

iii,  575-58i. 

iii,  967-973. 

iii,  1193-1199  (1196,  1 199). 

iii,  13  21-1330. 

iii,  1369-1372. 

iii,  1429. 


iii,  1576. 

iii,  1774-1775. 

iii,  1811-iv,  21  (iii,  1817;  iv,  18-21). 

iv,  36-42. 

iv,  799-805. 

iv,  1415-1421. 

v,  15-21  (19). 

v,  799-840  (799,  804,  816,  834). 

v.  848. 

v,  946. 

v,  1009. 

v,  1032. 

v,    1037-1085    (1037,    1044,    1050, 

1051). 

v,  1086-1099. 

v,  14.59- 

v,  1478-1484. 

v,  1562-1565. 

v,  1646-1666  (1651,  1653). 

v,  1751-1771  (1753,  1758). 

v,  1776. 

v,  1803-1804. 

v,  1854-1855. 


Chaucer's  Lollius 


93 


"  Myn  auctor  "  is  certainly  "  Lollius."  On  that  point  no  doubt  is 
possible  nor  does  there  seem  to  be  any  disposition  to  deny  so  plain  a 
proposition.  Whatever  may  be  said  of  vaguer  attributions  (like  "  as 
I  rede  "  or  "  writen  as  I  fynde  "  or  "  olde  bokes  "),  Lollius  and  myn 
auctor  are  always  one  and  the  same  person  in  Chaucer's  poem. 

"  Myn  auctor,  called  Lollius  "  is  first  cited  in  i,  394,  and  the  detail 
credited  to  him  is  certainly  to  be  found  in  the  Filostrato 1  —  namely, 
the  general  purport  of  Troilus'  song  in  contradistinction  to  the  ip- 
sissima  verba,  which  Chaucer  pretends  to  substitute.  We  note  that 
this  passage  not  only  registers  Lollius  distinctly  and  definitely  as  the 
source  of  the  Troilus,  but  also  tends  to  create  the  expectation  that 
whenever  Chaucer  departs  from  that  source,  he  will  give  notice,  as 
here,  particularly  in  case  he  inserts  anything.  This  impression  is 
strengthened  as  the  poem  goes  on,  and  therefore  the  point  need  not 
now  be  pressed.  It  is  enough  for  the  present  to  recognize  that  Chaucer 
here  sets  up  Lollius  as  his  auctor  and  leaves  upon  our  minds  the  gen- 
eral impression  that  he  purposes  to  follow  him  with  conscientious 
fidelity. 

But,  though  this  is  the  first  mention  of  Lollius  in  the  poem,  it  is  not 
the  first  place  where  a  particular  source  is  indicated;  for  when  Chaucer 
refers  to  "  reading,"  as  he  does  in  i,  133  and  159,  he  is  in  effect  referring 
to  his  auctor,  whose  name  is  soon  to  be  given  (in  394).  These  two 
passages  should  not  be  neglected,  and  with  them  must  be  considered 
certain  intervening  fines  (141-147)  that  distinguish  the  auctor  Chaucer 
means  to  follow  (as  yet  unnamed)  from  those  widely  known  writers 
on  general  Trojan  history  —  Homer  and  Dictys  and  Dares.  Even 
before  he  names  Lollius,  then,  Chaucer  has  led  us  to  believe  that  in 
narrating  "  the  double  sorrow  of  Troilus  "  he  is  following  a  particular 
auctor,  and  he  has  revealed  to  us  the  contents  of  that  auctor 's  work  in 
two  particulars: 

(1)  But  whether  that  she  children  hadde  or  noon, 

/  rede  it  nought;  therfore  I  lete  it  goon  (i,  132-133). 

(2)  In  sondry  wises  shewed,  as  I  rede, 

The  folk  of  Troye  hir  observaunces  olde, 
Palladiones  feste  for  to  holde  (i,  159-161). 

1  i,  37:  "  E  quindi  lieto  si  diede  a  cantare."  See  Young,  pp.  191-192  (and  refer- 
ences); Wise,  p.  5;  Cummings,  pp.  158-159. 


94  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

Now  the  second  of  these  references  is  true  to  the  Filostrato,1  but  the 
first  is  notoriously  the  opposite,  for  Boccaccio  expressly  declares  that 
Cressida  had  no  children.2  The  next  mention  of  "  reading  "  comes 
soon  after  the  mention  of  Lollius,  namely,  in  495,  and  this  time  the 
reference  is  again  true  to  the  Filostrato.9  For  the  first  500  lines  of 
his  poem,  then,  three  of  Chaucer's  references  to  his  source  will  suit 
the  formula  Lollius  =  Boccaccio,4  and  one  will  not.5  For  the  rest  of  the 
book  we  are  left  without  any  further  indication  —  the  inference  being 
that  Lollius  is  followed.  Yet  there  are  hundreds  of  verses  that  do  not 
come  from  Boccaccio.  The  significance  of  all  this  is  plain  enough,  but 
it  becomes  still  plainer  when  we  reach  Book  ii. 

Here,  in  w.  8-49  of  the  proem,  "myn  auctor  "  appears  in  great  state. 
Chaucer  declares  that  if  Clio  will  only  help  him  to  make  good  rhymes, 
nothing  more  will  be  necessary  in  this  book,6  since  he  is  not  composing 
anything  original  but  simply  translating  from  Latin  into  English. 
Therefore,  he  adds,  he  wishes  neither  praise  nor  blame  for  "  all  this 
work,"  —  "  for  as  myn  auctor  seyde,  so  seye  I."  And  he  closes  with 
the  words  — 

Sin  I  have  bigonne 
Myn  auctor  shal  I  folwen,  if  I  conne. 

There  is  no  mistaking  the  impression  that  Chaucer  wished  these  lines 
to  convey.  They  are  equivalent  to  saying  that  so  far  he  has  followed 
Lollius  in  a  faithful  translation  (though  not,  of  course,  in  a  literal 
translation  because  he  is  turning  that  author's  Latin  into  English 
rhyme),  and  that  he  intends  to  continue  in  the  same  way.  Yet  of  the 
500  lines  immediately  preceding,  more  than  300  are  Chaucer's  own, 
and  immediately  after  this  express  statement,  we  have  more  than  200 
verses  of  which  hardly  a  word  can  be  found  in  the  Filostrato.  These 
are  ii,  50-273,  and  what  is  true  of  them,  is  true  likewise  of  ii,  323-385, 
421-500,  526-553,  603-644,  and  666-698.  In  short,  despite  the  elabo- 
rate professions  of  fidelity  to  his  auctor,  it  appears  that  about  500 

1  i,  18.  2  i,  15. 

8  i,  48.  Chaucer  substitutes  "  wel  rede  I  *  for  Boccaccio's  "  e  assai  chiaro  ed 
aperto." 

4  Troilus,  i,  159-161,  394-395,  495- 

6  i,  132-133. 

6  "  This  book  "  (10)  appears  to  mean,  not  the  whole  poem,  but  Book  ii.  At  the 
beginning  of  Book  iii  Chaucer  invokes  Venus  and  Calliope. 


Chaucer's  Lollius  95 

out  of  the  650  verses  that  come  immediately  after  the  proem  are  not 
from  Boccaccio.  "  Myn  auctor,"  then,  as  there  used  for  an  extensive 
look  before  and  after,  is  strikingly  inconsistent  with  the  equation 
Boccaccio  =  Lollius. 

But  we  have  not  done.  Chaucer  now  appeals  once  more  to  his 
auctor,  this  time  in  introducing  an  account  of  Cressida's  meditations: 

And  what  she  thoughte,  somwhat  shal  I  wryte, 

As  to  myn  auctor  listeth  for  to  endyte  (ii,  690-700). 

The  meditations,  which  take  up  w.  701-812,  contain  much  more  of 
Chaucer  than  of  Boccaccio;  and  they  are  immediately  followed  by 
the  garden  scene  (ii,  813-910),  which  is  original  with  Chaucer,1  though 
the  reader  could  hardly  avoid  the  inference  that  it  too  came  from 
Lollius. 

The  next  appeal  to  a  source  is  in  ii,  1219-1220,2  where  Chaucer  says 
that  "  his  intent "  is  to  give  "  the  effect "  of  Cressida's  letter  "  as  far 
as  he  can  understand."  And,  in  truth,  he  here  condenses  the  seven- 
stanza  Italian  epistle3  into  five  lines.  Immediately  after,  however, 
before  the  impression  of  this  reference  to  authority  has  faded  from 
our  minds,  Chaucer  becomes,  notably  original,  departing  from  Boc- 
caccio at  v.  1227  and  (except  for  some  50  lines)  remaining  original 
for  about  500  verses  —  to  the  end  of  the  second  book.  Yet  in  this 
long  passage  of  original  matter  he  twice  pretends  to  be  condensing  his 
auctor: 

But  flee  we  now  prolixitee  best  is, 

For  loue  of  God,  and  lat  as  faste  go 

Right  to  the  effect,  withouten  tales  mo  (ii,  1 564-1 566). 

But  al  passe  I,  lest  ye  to  longe  dwelle; 

For  for  o  fyn  is  al  that  ever  I  telle  (ii,  1 595-1 596). 

In  both  these  places  Chaucer  picks  up  and  continues  the  effect  of 
what  he  had  said  about  condensing  the  letter  (ii,  12 19-12  20).    There, 

1  See,  however,  Young,  pp.  173-176,  where  especial  attention  is  given  to  Anti- 
gone's song  (ii.  827-875).  The  general  source  of  this  lyric  I  believe  to  be  Guillaume 
de  Machaut  (Modern  Language  Notes,  XXV,  158);  but  it  is  certainly  in  most 
respects  Chaucer's  own. 

2  I  pass  over  ii,  1 700-1 701,  though  (in  strictness)  this  passage  belongs  to  the 
same  class  as  those  mentioned  below,  p.  97,  note  1. 

8  Filostrato,  ii,  1 21-12  7. 


96  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

he  was  actually  condensing  Boccaccio;  here  he  is  not  condensing 
anybody,  but  inventing,  and  at  considerable  length.  Yet  in  both 
cases  he  wishes  the  reader  to  think  that  he  is  faithful  to  his  auctor 
Lollius,  though  with  some  abridgement. 

Chaucer's  procedure,  then,  as  far  as  the  end  of  Book  ii,  is  quite 
clear.  Having  introduced  his  "  auctor  Lollius  "  —  his  pretended  au- 
thority for  the  whole  Troilus  —  early  in  book  i  (at  394),  he  recalls 
him  to  the  reader's  mind  at  convenient  intervals.  These  credits  some- 
times accord  with  material  that  is  in  the  Filostrato,  but  they  oftener 
refer  or  apply  to  material  that  is  not.  So  far,  therefore,  Lollius  is 
not  Boccaccio  or  anybody  else  but  Lollius  —  the  supposed  writer  on 
Troy  (celebrated  as  such  in  The  House  of  Fame)  from  whom  Chaucer 
(in  a  fiction)  professes  to  have  derived  all  his  material  —  a  Latin 
writer  whom  he  translates  rather  closely,  never  departing  from  him 
without  due  notice. 

The  proem  to  Book  iii,  though  not  mentioning  any  auctor,  is  meant 
to  recall  (in  39-49)  the  fiction  of  fidelity  in  translating  already  set 
forth  with  such  care  in  the  proem  to  Book  ii.  We  should  note  the  close 
connection  between  ii,  13-14,  and  iii,  43-44: 

That  of  no  sentement  I  this  endyte, 

But  out  of  Latin  in  my  tonge  it  wryte  (ii,  13-14). 

Ye  in  my  naked  herte  sentement 

Inhelde,  and  do  me  shewe  of  thy  swetnesse  (iii,  43-44). 

Chaucer  picks  up  this  fiction  again  in  iii,  90-91 : 

His  [Troilus']  resons  [i.e.,  his  words]  as  I  may  my  rymes  holde, 

[i.e.,  as  well  as  I  can  reproduce  them  in  rhyme,] 

I  yow  wol  telle,  as  techen  bokes  olde.1 

What  follows  (92-238)  is  not  in  the  Filostrato,  and  the  whole  scene  is 
Chaucer's  invention.  At  450,  however,  the  matter  referred  to  as 
"  writen  in  geste  "  2  does  occur  in  that  poem.    Here  we  have  a  device 

1  "  Bokes  olde  "  means  obviously  either  "  myn  auctor  Lollius  "  (with  a  gen- 
eralizing plural),  or  "  myn  auctor  Lollius  and  other  old  books."  The  distinction 
does  not  affect  our  argument. 

2  Filostrato,  ii,  84  (Cummings,  p.  157).  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  this 
ascription,  though  it  may  perhaps  be  admitted  as  favoring  the  equation  Lollius  = 
Boccaccio,  is  by  no  means  a  firm  buttress  for  that  formula,  since  "  as  written  is  in 


Chaucer's  Lollius  97 

which  is  several  times  employed  in  the  Troilus:  —  a  detail  is  mentioned 
(442-448)  as  to  which  the  poet  professes  ignorance,  and  to  this  suc- 
ceeds a  fact  (introduced  by  but,  449)  which  he  does  know,  or  does  find 
in  his  auctor} 

Almost  immediately  after  this  Chaucer  once  more  suggests  conden- 
sation ("  shortly  of  this  proces  for  to  pace,"  iii,  470)  though  the  whole 
passage  is  his  own.  Then  come  the  famous  stanzas  in  which  he  fore- 
stalls criticism  (iii,  491-504):  "  Someone  may  expect  me  to  rehearse 
every  word  and  message  and  look.  But  that  would  be  tedious,  and 
nobody  ever  heard  of  its  being  done  in  any  history.  Besides,  even  if 
I  wished,  I  could  not; 

"  For  there  was  som  epistel  hem  bitwene, 
That  wolde,  as  seyth  myn  auctor,  wel  contene 
Neigh  half  this  book,  of  which  him  list  not  write; 
How  sholde  I  thanne  a  lyne  of  it  endite  ?  "  (iii,  501-504). 

Boccaccio  says  nothing  of  the  kind.    Auctor,  then,  is  certainly  not 
Boccaccio. 
The  next  mention  of  a  source  is  likewise  decisive: 

Nought  myn  auctor  fully  to  declare 

What  that  she  thoughte  whan  he  seyde  so, 

That  Troilus  was  out  of  town  y-fare, 

As  if  he  seyde  ther-of  sooth  or  no; 

But  that,  with-oute  awayt,  with  him  to  go, 

She  graunted  him,  sith  he  hir  that  bisoughte> 

And,  as  his  nece,  obeyed  as  hir  oughte.  (iii,  575-581). 

This  stanza  contains  two  statements  about  "  myn  auctor  "  :  —  (1) 
that  he  does  not  make  it  quite  clear  whether  Cressida  believed  Pan- 
darus;  (2)  that  he  does  assert  that  she  accepted  her  uncle's  invitation.2 
Now  Boccaccio  asserts  nothing  of  the  kind,  for  the  important  incident 

geste  "  really  covers  iii,  451-490,  and  the  Boccaccian  passage  is  no  adequate  source 
for  much  of  this.  Boccaccio,  indeed,  seems  to  allow  no  actual  meeting  between 
the  lovers  until  the  night  when  Cressida  yields.  Chaucer,  on  the  contrary,  declares 
that  they  had  several  interviews  in  the  meantime.  On  the  whole,  then,  this  as- 
cription is  rather  against  the  equation  than  for  it. 

1  For  similar  cases,  see  i,  492-497;  ii,  1700-1701;  iii,  575-581,  967-973*  1369- 
1372;  iv,  36-42.  The  device  is  a  natural  one,  but  we  may  note  that  its  first  employ- 
ment in  the  Troilus  (i,  492-497)  comes  from  the  Filoitrato  (i,  48). 

8  For  the  manner  of  citation,  see  p.  96,  above. 


98  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

of  the  visit  to  Pandarus  is  of  Chaucer's  own  imagining.  The  passage 
would  be  enough,  without  further  evidence,  to  destroy  the  equation 
auctor  Lollius  —  Boccacio. 

Very  similar  is  the  next  allusion  to  a  source,  which  comes  some  fifty- 
odd  stanzas  later  in  the  same  episode: 

Can  I  not  seyn,  for  she  bad  him  not  ryse, 

If  sorwe  it  putte  out  of  hir  remembraunce, 

Or  elles  if  she  tok  it  in  the  wyse 

Of  duetee,  as  for  his  observaunce; 

But  welfinde  I  she  dide  him  this  pleasaunce, 

That  she  him  kiste,  al-though  she  syked  sore; 

And  bad  him  sitte  a-doun  with-outen  more  (iii,  967-973). 

Here  Chaucer  begins  by  telling  us  that  he  does  not  know  why  Cressida 
neglected  to  bid  Troilus  rise  (presumably  because  his  auctor  Lollius 
did  not  inform  him),  and  then  adds  something  that  he  does  "  find  " 
(in  Lollius  —  where  else  ?).  Again  no  word  of  all  this  in  Boccaccio! 
The  same  device  (where  also  there  is  no  such  matter  in  the  Filostrato) 
recurs  in  iii,  1369-1372.  Here  Chaucer  says  that  he  cannot  tell  the 
posies  on  the  rings  interchanged  by  the  lovers,  but  that  he  does  "  know 
well "  (i.e.,  of  course,  because  he  found  it  in  Lollius)  that  Cressida 
gave  Troilus  a  gold  and  azure  brooch  in  which  was  set  a  ruby  shaped 
like  a  heart. 

A  little  before  this  last  passage  (namely,  in  iii,  1193-1197),  Chaucer 
expressly  mentions  his  fictitious  auctor: 

I  can  no  more,  but  of  thise  ilke  tweye, 

To  whom  this  tale  sucre  be  or  soot, 

Though  that  I  tarie  a  veer,  som-tyme  I  moot 

After  myn  auctor  tellen  hir  gladnesse, 

As  wel  as  I  have  told  hir  hevinesse  (iii,  11 93-1 197). 

The  "hevinesse  "  of  the  lovers  (iii,  n 97)  is  described  and  narrated, 
with  a  wealth  of  vivid  detail  in  iii,  792-1183,  and  this  passage  of  nearly 
400  lines  does  not  come  from  Boccaccio,  even  in  the  most  general 
way.1  The  "gladnesse"  of  the  lovers  (iii,  1196)  is  described  and 
narrated,  with  a  wealth  of  vivid  detail,  in  iii,  1198-1414,  and  of  this 
passage  of  about  200  lines  only  about  a  third  is  taken  from  the  Filo- 

1  The  parallels  between  the  Troilus  and  the  Filocolo  quoted  by  Young,  pp.  143  ff., 
may  be  accepted  without  affecting  my  argument  here. 


Chaucer's  Lollius  99 

strato.  Yet  Chaucer  declares  with  emphasis  in  iii,  1193-97,  which 
looks  before  and  after,  forming  a  transition  from  one  of  these  highly 
original  passages  to  the  other,  that  he  has  followed  his  auctor  in  the 
first  and  means  to  follow  him  likewise  in  the  second,  —  indeed  that 
he  must  follow  him  if  he  is  to  tell  the  story.  Nowhere  in  the  poem  are 
his  disclaimers  and  his  protestation  of  faithfulness  to  his  auctor  more 
striking.  Indeed,  in  iii,  1198,  after  he  has  proceeded  to  the  extent  of 
just  one  verse  in  the  "  gladnesse  "  scene,  he  reiterates  his  profession  of 
fidelity  in  the  words,  "  As  written  clerkes  1  in  hir  bokes  olde"  : 

Criseyde,  which  that  felte  hir  thus  ytake, 

As  writen  clerkes  in  hir  bokes  olde, 

Right  as  an  aspes  leef  she  gan  to  quake  (iii,  11 97-1 199). 

The  only  clerk  who  ever  wrote  this  in  his  old  book  was  Geoffrey 
Chaucer  himself.  But  he  is  not  yet  content  with  the  emphasis  that 
he  has  laid  upon  his  faithfulness  to  Lollius.  In  iii,  13  21-1330,  he 
actually  interrupts  his  account  of  the  lovers'  "gladnesse"  to  cite  his 
auctor  and  protest  fidelity  again: 

Awey,  thou  foule  daunger  and  thou  fere, 
And  lat  hem  in  this  hevene  blisse  dwelle, 
That  is  so  heygh,  that  al  ne  can  I  telle! 

But  sooth  is,  though  I  can  not  tellen  al, 

As  can  myn  auctor,  of  his  excellence, 

Yet  have  I  seyd  (and  god  to-forn)  and  shal 

In  every  thing  al  hoolly  his  sentence; 

And  if  that  I,  at  loves  reverence, 

Have  any  word  in-eched  for  the  beste, 

Doth  therewith-al  right  as  your-selven  leste  (iii,  13  21-1330). 

"  Tellen  al  "  in  v.  1324  applies  (like  the  same  phrase  in  v.  1323)  to  the 
details  of  "  this  hevene  blisse."  The  meaning  is  unmistakable.  "  My 
auctor"  the  poet  avers,  "  gives  complete  details  of  the  lovers'  happi- 
ness, but  I  am  unable  to  reproduce  them  in  full,  for  I  have  not  his 
ability; 2  yet  so  far  in  this  description,  I  have  reproduced  his  meaning 
at  every  point,  condensing  more  or  less,  and  only  now  and  then  insert- 

1  Clerkes  with  their  bokes  olde  is  manifestly  a  mere  variation  of  myn  auctor  (three 
lines  before);  but  if  we  choose  to  take  it  in  the  sense  of  "  myn  auctor  and  others," 
no  harm  is  done. 

2  Cf.  ii,  8-21,  1 2 19-12 20;  iii,  39-48;  iv,  799-805;  v,  1769. 


ioo  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

ing  a  word.  And  in  the  rest  of  the  scene  I  shall  do  likewise."1  The 
plain  truth  is  very  different  from  Chaucer's  artistic  fiction:  —  in  that 
portion  of  the  "  gladnesse  "  scene  which  immediately  precedes  — 
about  125  verses  (iii,  1 198-1320) — he  has  been  almost  completely 
original,  borrowing  only  a  dozen  lines  or  so  from  Boccaccio,  and  in  the 
rest  of  this  scene  (iii,  1338-1414)  he  expands  Boccaccio  by  about 
twenty  per  cent.  The  whole  of  the  "  gladnesse  "  scene,  as  I  have 
already  noted  (iii,  n  98-1 41 4),  is  only  about  one-third  Boccaccio's, 
and  the  scene  of  "  hevinesse  "  (iii,  792-1183) — ascribed  to  "myn 
auctor  "  with  equal  emphasis  —  is  not  in  Boccaccio  at  all. 

Here  it  may  be  well  to  consider  the  Visit  to  Pandarus  as  a  whole 
(iii,  512-1582).  The  narrative  is  suggested,  no  doubt,  by  Boccaccio's 
account  of  Troilus'  visit  to  Cressida,2  but  Chaucer  has  cut  loose  from 

1  The  reference  here  is  not  to  a  general  procedure  throughout  the  poem,  but 
to  procedure  in  this  scene.  The  apologetic  words  of  the  poet  interrupt  his  account 
of  the  lovers'  transports,  which  is  resumed  at  1338.  Chaucer's  disclaimer  in  iii, 
1322-1325  is  adapted  from  two  passages  in  the  Filostrato: 

Lungo  sarebbe  a  raccontar  la  festa, 

E  impossibile  a  dire  il  diletto 

Che  insieme  preser  pervenuti  in  questa  (iii,  31); 

O  dolce  notte,  e  molto  disiata, 

Chente  fostu  alii  due  lieti  amantil 

Se  la  scienza  mi  fosse  donata 

Che  ebbero  i  poeti  tutti  quanti, 

Per  me  non  potrebbe  esser  disegnata!  (iii,  33). 

It  is  immensely  significant  with  reference  to  Chaucer's  Lollian  fiction  that,  whereas 
Boccaccio  remarks  that  even  if  he  had  "  all  the  skill  of  all  the  poets  "  he  could  not 
do  justice  to  the  subject,  Chaucer,  in  adapting  the  passage,  declares  that  his  auctor 
was  fully  competent  and  gave  a  complete  and  detailed  account,  but  that  he  [the 
translator]  cannot  reproduce  all  these  details,  for  lack  of  skill. 

Of  course  Chaucer  knew  that  he  had  been  expanding  enormously  in  this  scene, 
and  this  knowledge  doubtless  added  zest  to  his  remark  (appended  to  his  profession 
of  condensing  or  omitting)  that  he  might  have  put  in  a  word  here  and  there  to 
make  the  translation  clearer  ("  have  any  word  in-eched  for  the  beste  ").  This 
would  inevitably  be  understood  by  any  one  who  was  taken  in  by  Chaucer's  pre- 
tence of  translating  from  Lollius  as  referring  merely  to  such  occasional  insertions 
of  a  word  or  two  as  are  necessary  in  translating  from  Latin  prose  or  verse  into 
English  rhymes. 

2  Filostrato ,  iii,  21-55.  Some  details  appear  to  have  been  suggested  by  the 
Filocolo  (see  Young,  pp.  139  ff.). 


Chaucer's  Lollius  iol 

the  Filostrato  and  written,  as  all  admit,  a  highly  original' episode," 
utilizing  only  such  material  in  the  Italian  as  suited' hife ^uiSpose.- "Boc- 
caccio's account  occupies  less  than  300  verses;  Chaucer's  narrative 
extends  to  more  than  a  thousand.  Yet  Chaucer  not  only  cites  his 
auctor  just  before  the  episode  (iii,  502),  but  also,  in  the  course  of  the 
episode  itself,  makes  several  professions  (express  or  implied)  that  he 
is  faithfully  following  that  auctor  to  the  best  of  his  ability,  and  con- 
tracting rather  than  expanding  (iii,  575-581,  967-973,  1193-1199, 
1323-1330,  1369-1372).  There  is  one  more  suggestion  of  condensing 
in  the  very  last  part  of  the  episode  (iii,  1576),  though  the  particular 
incident  (1 555-1582)  does  not  occur  in  Boccaccio  at  all.  This  state  of 
things  would  be  enough  to  prove  the  impossibility  of  seriously  equating 
Lollius  with  Boccaccio  rather  than  with  himself,  Lollius,  the  alleged 
source  of  practically  everything  in  the  poem.1 

Book  iii  closes  after  some  200  more  verses,  about  half  of  them  from 
Boccaccio,  but  it  does  not  close  without  a  sweeping  assertion  from 

1  I  pass  over  iii,  1774-1775,  since  here  Chaucer  is  merely  appealing  to  books 
in  general  —  i.e.,  the  authorities  on  Trojan  history  —  for  the  detail  that  Troilus  was 
second  only  to  Hector  in  prowess.  Most  of  the  stanza,  including  the  phrase  in 
question  ("  se  non  erra  La  storia  ")  comes  from  the  Filostrato  (iii,  00),  but  this 
particular  detail  is  not  found  there.  The  celebration  of  Troilus  as  next  to  Hector 
in  prowess  occurs  five  times  in  Chaucer's  poem: 

1.  The  wyse  worthy  Ector  the  secounde  (ii,  158). 

2.  For  out  and  out  he  is  the  worthieste 

Save  only  Ector,  which  that  is  the  beste  (ii,  730-740). 

3.  And  certeynly,  but-if  that  bokes  erre, 

Save  Ector  most  ydrad  of  any  wight  (iii,  17  74-1 7  75). 

4.  For  whom  [i.e.  Hector]  as  olde  bokes  tellen  us, 
Was  mad  swich  wo  that  tonge  it  may  not  telle,  — 
And  namely  the  sorwe  of  Troilus, 

That  next  him  was  of  worthinesse  welle  (v,  1562-1565). 

5.  As  he  that  was  withouten  any  pere, 

Save  Ector,  in  his  tyme,  as  I  can  here  (v,  1803-1804). 

Passages  1,  2,  and  5  are  not  in  Boccaccio;  3  has  just  been  discussed.  The  mourn- 
ing for  Hector  is  mentioned  in  the  Filostrato  (viii,  1)  as  well  as  in  Benoit  (16317  ff. 
Constans,  16265 ff.  Joly)  an(l  Guido  (ed.  1489,  sig.  i.  4,  fol.  3),  but  the  rank  of 
Troilus  as  second  to  Hector  is  not  specified  in  that  context  by  any  one  of  the  three. 
The  detail  is  well  covered  by  both  Benoit  and  Guido  elsewhere;  still,  the  particular 
phrase  "  Ector  the  secounde  "  certainly  seems  to  come  from  Guido:  "  alius  Hector 
vel  secundus  ab  ipso  "  (sig.  e  2  v°):  see  Hamilton,  p.  76;  Young,  pp.  108-111. 


£Od  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

CJifcutei  of  fidelity  tuhis  auctor:  —  "Thanks  and  praise  to  thee,  0 
Lady  *Venas,, and  to  <by  son  Cupid,  and  to  you,  0  Muses! 

"  That  ye  thus  far  han  deyned  me  to  gyde, 
I  can  not  more  but  (syn  that  ye  wol  wende)  — 
Ye  heried  been  for  ay  withouten  ende! 

"  Thourgh  yow  have  I  said  fully  in  my  song 
The  effect  and  ioye  of  Troilus  servyse 
(Al  be  that  ther  was  som  disese  among) 
As  to  myn  auctor  listeth  to  devise. 
My  thridde  book  now  ende  I  in  this  wyse  — 
And  Troilus  in  lust  and  in  quiete 
Is  with  Criseyde,  his  owne  herte  swete"  (iii,  1811-1820). 

The  beginning  of  Book  iv  is  continuous  with  the  end  of  Book  iii: 

But  al  to  litel,  weylawey  the  whyle! 
Lasteth  swich  ioye  —  ythanked  be  Fortune, 
That  semeth  trewest  whan  she  wol  begyle, 
And  can  to  foles  so  hir  song  entune 
That  she  hem  hent  and  blent,  traytour  comune! 
And  whan  a  wight  is  from  hir  wheel  ythrowe, 
Than  laugheth  she  and  maketh  him  the  mowe. 

From  Troilus  she  gan  hir  brighte  face 
Awey  to  wrythe,  and  took  of  him  non  hede, 
But  caste  him  clene  out  of  his  lady  grace, 
And  on  hir  wheel  she  sette  up  Diomede; 
For  which  right  now  myn  herte  ginneth  blede, 
And  now  my  penne,  alias!  with  which  I  wryte, 
Quaketh  for  drede  of  that  I  moot  endyte. 

For  how  Criseyde  Troilus  forsook, 

Or  at  the  leste,  how  that  she  was  unkinde, 

Mot  hennes-forth  ben  matere  of  my  book, 

As  wry  ten  folk  thorugh  which  it  is  in  minde. 

Alias!  that  they  should  ever  cause  finde 

To  speke  hir  harm;  and  if  they  on  hir  lye, 

Y-wis,  hem-self  sholde  han  the  vilanye  (iv,  1-2 1). 

The  plural  in  the  last  four  lines  does  not  suggest  any  purpose  to  for- 
sake "  myn  auctor  Lollius,"  but  —  if  it  must  be  taken  literally,  and 
not  as  a  mere  variant  —  merely  implies  that  Lollius  is  here  supported 
by  other  authorities.  The  whole  passage  (iii,  1811-iv,  21)  would 
assuredly  confirm  the  impression  (already  fixed  in  the  reader's  mind 


Chaucer's  Lollius  103 

by  much  protesting)  that  Chaucer  has  followed  his  one  auctor  closely 
and  intends  to  follow  him  closely  to  the  end,  never  departing  from  him 
without  due  notice. 

References  or  allusions  to  a  source  are  not  common  in  Book  iv;  but 
there  are  enough  of  them  to  keep  alive  the  reader's  impression  that 
Chaucer  is  faithful  to  his  single  auctor.  In  iv,  36-42,  we  have  another 
example  of  a  device  already  treated:1  —  avowed  ignorance  of  some 
detail  plus  avowed  knowledge  of  something  else.  "  I  do  not  know  how 
long  the  interval  was,  but  —  the  day  of  battle  came,"  etc.  This 
amounts  to  alleging  that  "  myn  auctor  does  not  define  the  interval 
but  does  narrate  ut  sequitur."  Here,  so  it  happens,  the  reference  is 
true  to  Boccaccio.2 

In  iv,  799-805,  however,  we  have  a  curious  piece  of  Lollian  mystifi- 
cation. 

How  mighte  it  ever  yred  ben  or  ysonge, 

The  pleynte  that  she  made  in  hir  distresse? 

I  noot;  but,  as  for  me,  my  litel  tonge, 

If  I  discreven  wolde  hir  hevinesse, 

It  sholde  make  hir  sorwe  seme  lesse 

Than  that  it  was,  and  childishly  deface 

Hir  heigh  compleynte,  and  therefore  I  it  pace. 

Chaucer  would  have  us  believe  that  his  original  afforded  a  fuller 
account  of  Cressida's  lament,  which  he  is  unable  to  reproduce  because 
of  his  feeble  powers:  that  is,  he  exalts  his  auctor  at  his  own  expense 
and  pretends  to  summarize  or  omit.3  In  fact,  however,  he  gives 
Cressida's  complaint  at  almost  exactly  the  same  length  which  it  has 
in  Boccaccio,4  and  even  his  disclaimer  is  a  kind  of  translation,  empha- 
sized so  as  to  accord  with  his  regular  pose  of  lack  of  wit: 6 

Chi  potrebbe  giammai  narrare  a  pieno 
Cid  che  Criseida  nel  pianto  dicea? 
Certo  non  io,  che  al  fatto  il  dir  vien  meno, 
Tant'  era  la  sua  noia  cruda  e  rea  (iv,  95). 

Here,  then,  Chaucer  uses  the  very  words  of  Boccaccio  to  produce  the 
effect  of  condensing  Lollius  at  a  time  when,  in  fact,  he  is  following 

1  P.  97,  above.  2  Filostrato,  iv,  1-2. 

8  We  have  observed  the  same  device  in  iii,  1321-1330  (p.  99,  above). 

4  FUocolo,  iv,  88-94.  6  Cf.  p.  99,  note  2,  above. 


104  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

Boccaccio  without  condensation.  Lollius,  therefore,  is  not  Boccaccio, 
any  more  than  Chaucer  himself  becomes  identical  with  Boccaccio  by 
using  "  I  "  where  the  Italian  uses  "  io." 

Stanza  203  of  this  Fourth  Book  (141 5-142 1)  may  perhaps  be  dis- 
missed as  ambiguous  evidence.  "  As  writen  wel  I  fynde  "  (1415) 
would  naturally  mean  "  as  I  find  in  Lollius,"  and  then  "  Thus  writen 
they  that  of  hir  werkes  knewe  "  (1421)  would  be  either  a  loose  gener- 
alizing plural  for  "  myn  auctor,"  or  a  real  defining  plural  equivalent  to 
"  myn  auctor  "  and  other  writers.  The  detail  concerned  is  Cressida's 
honest  purpose  and  her  genuine  sorrow  at  parting,  and  we  have  the 
same  assertion  of  her  grief,  with  a  similar  plural  reference,  in  v,  15-21 
("  as  men  in  bokes  rede  ").  Both  Boccaccio  l  and  Benoit 2  do,  in  fact, 
emphasize  this  point.  Clearly,  however,  the  occasional  use  of  a  plural 
like  bokes  or  they  amounts  at  most  only  to  the  occasional  citation  of 
subsidiary  authorities  to  corroborate  Lollius,  and  has  a  tendency 
rather  to  establish  than  to  shaken  the  reader's  faith  in  Chaucer's  care- 
fully fostered  fiction  that  he  is  a  conscientious  translator  from  the 
Latin  of  that  vanished  ancient.  This  fiction,  therefore,  is  still  main- 
tained at  the  beginning  of  Book  v. 

And  so  we  arrive  at  the  highly  felictious  incident  of  Diomede's  flir- 
tation en  route  (v,  92-189).  This  incident  was  suggested  by  Benoit; 3 
there  is  not  a  touch  of  it  in  Boccaccio.  Yet  Chaucer  gives  no  hint  that 
he  is  here  departing  from  his  auctor,  and  the  reader  has  therefore 
every  reason  to  infer  that  the  episode  in  question  is  Lollian.  Immedi- 
ately after  the  wooing,  Chaucer  begins  to  follow  Boccaccio  again  (at 
v,  190)  and  keeps  reasonably  close  to  him,  though  indulging  in  con- 
siderable freedom,  until  we  reach  the  next  indication  of  source  (v,  799). 
From  92  to  799,  then,  there  is  no  indication  on  the  poet's  part  that  he 
is  indebted  to  anybody  but  Lollius.  Yet  in  92-189  his  source  (so  far 
as  he  is  not  original)  is  Benoit,  while  in  190-798  his  source  (so  far  as 
he  is  not  original)  is  Boccaccio.  It  is  idle,  then,  to  assert  that  Lollius 
is  Boccaccio  unless  one  is  willing  to  admit  that  Boccaccio  is  Benoit! 

1  FUostrato,  v,  1  and  6-7. 

2  13495  ff.  Constans  (13469 ff.  Joly).  Guido,  on  the  contrary,  apostrophizes 
Troilus  in  a  very  different  spirit:  "  Sed,  o  Troile,  quae  te  tarn  iuuenilis  errare  coegit 
credulitas  vt  Briseide  lacrimis  crederes  deceptiuis  et  eius  blandiciis  ?  "  and  he 
proceeds  to  lampoon  the  whole  sex  (ed.  1489,  sig.  i  2). 

1  13529-13702  Constans  (13499-13666  Joly). 


Chaucer's  Lollius  105 

The  celebrated  set  of  portraits  or  characters  —  Diomede,  Cressida, 
Troilus  —  in  v,  799-840,  is  a  digression,  and  has  a  somewhat  compli- 
cated genesis.1  The  passage  contains  four  indications  of  source.  The 
first,  "  as  bokes  us  declare  "  (799),  though  applying  (if  strictly  taken) 
to  Diomede's  portrait  alone,  may  well  enough  be  regarded  as  intro- 
ducing the  whole  set.  If  so,  the  "  bokes  "  would  naturally  be  under- 
stood by  the  reader  (as  in  the  case  of  the  plurals  just  discussed)  to 
mean  "  my  auctor  Lollius  and  other  authorities."  The  effect  of  having 
consulted  more  books  than  one  at  this  point  is  enhanced  by  "  and  som 
men  seyn  "  (804)  and  by  "  they  writen  that  hire  syen  "  (816).  As 
for  "  in  storie  it  is  yfounde  "  (834),  that  means  only  "  as  history  tells 
us,"  and  thus  ranges  with  the  plural  ascriptions  that  precede,  since 
all  educated  persons  in  the  fourteenth  century  knew  that  there  were 
several  extant  accounts  of  the  Trojan  War.  There  is  no  hint  that  the 
subsidiary  authorities  are  inconsistent  with  Lollius  in  the  points  here 
discussed.  They  are,  we  are  to  infer,  either  confirmatory  or  supple- 
mentary.   The  Lollian  fiction  remains,  then,  in  full  force. 

In  the  account  of  Diomede's  successful  pressing  of  his  suit  (v,  841- 
1036),  Chaucer  four  times  pretends  to  be  condensing:  —  "  At  shorte 
wordes  for  to  telle  "  (848) ;  "  What  sholde  I  telle  his  wordes  that  he 
seide?  "  (946);  "But  in  effect,  and  shortly  for  to  seye  "  (1009); 
"  And  shortly,  lest  that  ye  my  tale  breke  "  (1032).  In  fact,  he  is  fol- 
lowing Boccaccio  (vi,  9-34)  with  a  fair  degree  of  closeness,  but  not 
really  condensing  him;  for  Boccaccio  has  208  verses,  Chaucer  has  196. 
I  do  not  wish  to  press  the  point,  however,  and  am  quite  willing  to  allow 
this  passage  to  stand  to  the  credit  of  the  much  battered  formula 
Lollius = Boccaccio. 

What  follows  immediately,  however,  is  of  much  significance  on  the 
other  side.    I  must  quote  v,  1037-1057: 

And  after  this  the  story  telleth  us 

That  she  him  yaf  the  faire  baye  stede 

The  which  she  ones  wan  of  Troilus; 

And  eek  a  broche  (and  that  was  litle  nede)  1040 

That  Troilus  was  she  yaf  this  Diomede; 

1  The  sources  are  Boccaccio  and  (mediately  or  immediately,  or  both)  the 
portraits  drawn  by  Dares  (cap.  12),  as  well  as  the  epic  of  Josephus  Iscanus  (who 
also  drew  from  Dares).  That  Joseph  was  used  by  Chaucer  has  been  revealed  by 
Root,  whose  paper  in  Modern  Philology  is  eagerly  awaited  (see  the  references  in 
Cummings,  p.  80). 


106  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

And  eek,  the  bet  from  sorwe  him  to  releve, 
She  made  him  were  a  pencel  of  hir  sieve. 

I  finde  eek  in  the  stories  elleswhere, 

Whan  through  the  body  hurt  was  Diomede,  1045 

Of  Troilus,  tho  weep  she  many  a  tere 

Whan  that  she  saugh  his  wyde  woundes  blede, 

And  that  she  took  to  kepen  him  good  hede; 

And,  for  to  hele  him  of  his  sorwes  smerte, 

Men  seyn  (I  noot)  that  she  yaf  him  hir  herte.  1050 

But  trewely,  the  story  telleth  us, 

Ther  made  never  womman  more  wo 

Than  she,  whan  that  she  falsed  Troilus. 

She  seyde,  Alas!  for  now  is  clene  a-go 

My  name  of  trouthe  in  love,  for  ever-mo!  1055 

For  I  have  falsed  oon  the  gentileste 

That  ever  was,  and  oon  the  worthiestel 

"  The  story  "  in  1037  is  of  course  "  myn  auctor  Lollius,"  and  equally 
of  course,  it  is  the  same  auctor  (Chaucer  means  to  imply)  that  he  has 
followed  in  the  account  just  preceding  (841-1036).  Now  the  facts 
are  (1)  that  841-1036  are  mainly  (though  not  exclusively)  from  Boc- 
caccio, as  we  have  seen;  (2)  that  the  steed  is  from  Benoit;  *  (3)  that 
the  brooch  is  from  Boccaccio; 2  and  (4)  that  the  "  pencel "  is  from 
Benoit.3  If  Boccaccio  is  Lollius,  then,  Benoit  is  Lollius  by  the  same 
token,  and  once  more  we  have  proved  that  Boccaccio  is  Benoit! 

But  to  continue.  "  In  the  stories  elsewhere  "  (1044)  either  implies 
a  departure  from  the  source  that  Chaucer  has  been  following  in 
the  first  stanza  or  it  does  not.  If  it  does  imply  such  a  departure,  it  is 
a  misstatement,  for  the  incident  reported  is  from  Benoit;  4  if  it  does 
not  imply  such  a  departure,  then  it  means  "  elsewhere  in  Lollius."  On 
either  alternative,  the  equation  Boccaccio = Lollius  is  excluded. 

At  all  events,  "  the  story  "  in  1051  manifestly  means  the  same 
history  that  is  cited  in  1037,  —  that  is,  Lollius.  Yet  what  follows  in 
105  2-1085  is  not  from  Boccaccio  but  from  Benoit,8  with  Chaucer's 
own  additions.6 

1  14286-14324,  15114-15115  Constans  (14238-14276,  15046-15047  Joly). 

2  Filostrato,  viii,  9-10;  cf.  Troilus,  v,  1660-1666. 
1  15176-15178  Constans  (151046°.,  Joly). 

4  20202  ff.  Constans  (20193-20,274  Joly). 

6  20220-20317  Constans  (20221-20308,  Joly). 

6  Stanzas  156-157  (v,  1086-1099)  throw  no  light  on  the  Lollian  fiction.    "  Non 


Chaucer's  Lollius  107 

With  1 100  Chaucer  returns  to  Troilus,  and  the  reader  naturally 
supposes  (as  Chaucer  intends  him  to  suppose)  that  the  same  source  is 
to  be  followed  as  heretofore  —  Lollius,  just  referred  to  as  "  the  story  " 
in  105 1.  This  impression  will  naturally  extend  to  whatever  is  narrated 
until  there  is  a  further  express  indication  of  source,1  —  that  is,  it  will 
cover  the  contents  of  1 100-1650,  — up  to  1651,  where  "  the  storie  "  is 
once  more  cited.  Lollius,  then,  is  responsible  for  the  contents  of  1100- 
1650.    These,  briefly  analyzed,  are  — 

(1)  1 100-1456,  mostly  from  Boccaccio; 

(2)  1457-1512,  from  Ovid  and  the  Thebaid; 

(3)  ISI3_I534>  fr°m  Boccaccio,  with  additions; 

(4)  1535-1561,  original  and  from  Benoit; 

(5)  1 562-1 589,  mostly  from  Boccaccio; 

(6)  1 590-1 63 1,  Cressida's  letter,  original; 

(7)  1632-1650,  from  Boccaccio. 

Thus  Lollius  becomes  a  somewhat  complicated  worthy.  Yet  he  it  is 
whom  Chaucer  means  us  to  accept  as  the  source  of  this  mosaic  (v,  1100- 
1650),  and  his  intention,  clear  enough  already,  is  emphasized  by  an- 
other reference  to  "  the  storie  "  at  this  point  (1651).  It  will  be  best 
to  quote  three  stanzas: 

Stood  on  a  day  in  his  melencolye 

This  Troilus,  and  in  suspecioun 

Of  hir  for  whom  he  wende  for  to  dye. 

And  so  bifel,  that  through-out  Troye  toun, 

As  was  the  gyse,  y-bore  was  up.  and  doun  1650 

A  maner  cote-armure,  as  seyth  the  storie, 

Biforn  Deiphebe,  in  signe  of  his  victorie, 

auctor  "  (1088)  means  "  neither  Lollius  (my  authority  in  this  work)  nor  any  other 
writer  whom  I  have  consulted  on  this  point."  "  The  story  "  in  1094  may  mean 
either  Lollius  or  "  the  history  in  general  "  (i.  e.,  the  Trojan  story).  All  the  authori- 
ties (Benoit,  Guido,  and  Boccaccio)  blame  Cressida.  Thus  these  verses  are  ambigu- 
ous evidence  in  our  discussion. 

1  The  "  olde  bokes  "  mentioned  in  v,  1562-1565,  as  testifying  to  the  lamentation 
for  Hector  count  on  neither  side  in  our  discussion.  The  reference  is  merely  casual 
and  vouches  for  an  incidental  detail.  It  suggests  no  turning  aside  from  the  main 
line  of  translation.  The  detail,  anyhow,  is  found  in  all  three  authorities  —  Boccaccio 
(Filostralo,  viii,  1;  Teseide,  xi,  7),  Benoit,  and  Guido.  "  Olde  stories  "  in  v,  1459,  and 
"  olde  bokes  "  in  1478  and  1481,  are  ascriptions  by  Cassandra  and  do  not  count. 
Cf.  Pandarus'  "  bokes  twelve  "  for  the  Thebaid  (ii,  108),  and  Troilus*  "  as  men  in 
bokes  rede  "  (iii,  1429). 


108  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

The  whiche  cote,  as  telleth  Lollius, 

Deiphebe  it  hadde  y-rent  from  Diomede 

The  same  day;  and  whan  this  Troilus  1655 

It  saugh,  he  gan  to  taken  of  it  hede, 

Avysing  of  the  length  and  of  the  brede, 

And  al  the  werk;  but  as  he  gan  biholde, 

Ful  sodeinly  his  herte  gan  to  colde, 

As  he  that  on  the  coler  fond  with-inne  1660 

A  broche,  that  he  Criseyde  yaf  that  morwe 

That  she  from  Troye  moste  nedes  twinne, 

In  remembraunce  of  him  and  of  his  sorwe; 

And  she  him  leyde  ayein  hir  feyth  to  borwe 

To  kepe  it  ay;  but  now,  ful  wel  he  wiste,  1665 

His  lady  nas  no  longer  on  to  triste  (v,  1 646-1 666). 

By  "  the  storie  "  in  1651  Chaucer  means  the  reader  to  understand  the 
same  authority  mentioned  (in  the  same  terms)  in  1037  and  1051.  But, 
since  he  has  not  called  him  by  name  for  a  good  while,  and  since  the 
poem  is  drawing  to  a  close,  he  adds  "  as  telleth  Lollius,"  and  thus 
fixes  his  auctor  in  our  minds  forever. 

It  is  quite  true  that  the  detail  of  the  coat-armor  is  found  in  Boc- 
caccio, and  in  Boccaccio  alone.1  But  Chaucer's  manifest  purpose  here 
is  not  simply  to  credit  Lollius  with  a  particular  detail,  but  likewise  to 
recall  the  name  itself  to  our  minds  as  that  of  the  auctor  whom  he  has 
consistently  pretended  to  follow  from  the  outset.  This  fiction  of 
fidelity  to  Lollius  is  in  no  wise  weakened  or  contravened  by  the  few 
instances  in  which  Chaucer  suggests  that  he  has  consulted  other  old 
writers.  For  in  these  instances,  as  we  have  seen,  the  other  ancients 
either  agree  with  Lollius  (such  is  the  fiction  intended)  or  supplement 
him  in  some  incidental  matter.  Anyhow,  the  total  amount  of  material 
thus  alleged  as  supplementary  is  a  mere  nothing  —  and  the  fiction  of 
fidelity  to  Lollius  gains  rather  than  loses  in  verisimilitude  by  such 
references.  For  we  naturally  infer,  as  I  have  said  before,  that  Lollius 
is  never  abandoned,  even  for  a  moment,  without  due  notice. 

And  so  it  results  from  our  examination  of  the  numerous  passages 
in  which  Chaucer  thus  far  refers  or  alludes  to  his  auctor,  —  there  are 
nearly  40  of  them,  or  an  average  of  one  for  every  200  lines  —  that 
Lollius  stands  for  the  source  not  merely  of  what  Chaucer  has  actually 

1  FUostrato,  viii,  8-10. 


Chaucer1  s  Lollius  109 

taken  from  Boccaccio,  but,  with  a  few  minute  exceptions,  for  what  he 
has  actually  taken  from  Benoit  and  Statius  and  Guillaume  de  Machaut 
and  Boethius  and  Ovid  and  —  more  important  still  —  what  he  has 
derived  from  his  own  imagination.  Lollius  is  nobody  but  Lollius  —  a 
real  personage  (as  Chaucer  thought)  from  whom,  in  a  fiction,  he  pre- 
tends to  translate  his  poem. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  200  lines  that  remain  (v,  166  7-1 869)  that 
modifies  these  pregnant  and  unforced  conclusions.1  Two  places,  how- 
ever, need  citation.  First,  in  v,  1 765-1 771,  Chaucer  reverts  to  the 
distinction  he  made  at  the  very  beginning  (i,  141-147)  and  points  out 
the  difference  between  his  matter  (i.e.,  the  material  that  he  has  found 
in  the  lost  author  Lollius)  and  the  well-known  tale  of  Troy  as  recorded 
by  Dares.  This  distinction  helps,  of  course,  to  maintain  the  fiction 
of  a  Lollian  source,  a  long-lost  manuscript  discovered  by  Chaucer 
when  the  stars  were  propitious.  Second,  in  1 854-1855  he  seems  to 
imply  that  Lollius  wrote  in  verse,  like  "  Virgil,  Ovide,  Omer,  Lucan, 
and  Stace  "  : 

Lo  here  the  forme  of  olde  clerkes  speche 

In  poetrye,  if  ye  hir  bokes  seche! 

This  point,  however,  may  be  waived.  At  all  events,  Chaucer  has  in- 
formed us  unequivocally  that  Lollius  wrote  his  Troilus  story  in  Latin 
(ii,  14),  and  that  alone  is  enough  to  show  that  Chaucer  did  not  mean 
him  to  be  Boccaccio. 

1  "  I  finde  "  (v,  1758),  following  "  As  men  may  in  thes  olde  bokes  rede  "  (1753), 
means  apparently,  "  I  find  in  these  old  books."  The  whole  passage  (1751-1764) 
is  true  to  Boccaccio  (Filostralo,  viii,  25-26)  and  may  be  counted,  if  one  wishes,  in 
favor  of  the  equation  so  often  referred  to;  but  it  does  not  disturb  the  impression 
that  Chaucer's  consistently  followed  source  is  Lollius,  and  that  impression  dis- 
proves the  equation.  "  Other  bokes  "  in  1776,  and  "  as  I  can  here  "  in  1804  prove 
nothing  either  way. 


no  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

APPENDIX  II 

Use  of  the  Teseide  in  the  Troilus 

Three  stanzas  of  the  Troilus  (v,  1807-182 7)  have  long  been  recog- 
nized as  an  almost  literal  translation  from  the  Teseide  (xi,  1-3).  The 
following  imitation,  almost  equally  literal,  has  not  been  noted: 1 

On  hevene  yet  the  sterres  were  sene, 

Although  ful  pale  ywoxen  was  the  mone, 

And  whyten  gan  the  orisonte  shene 

Al  estward,  as  it  woned  is  to  done; 

And  Phebus  with  his  rosy  carte  sone 

Gan  after  that  to  dresse  him  up  to  fare, 

Whan  Troilus  hath  sent  after  Pandare  (v,  274-280). 

II  ciel  tutte  le  stelle  ancor  mostrava, 

Benche  Febea  gia  palida  fosse; 

E  l'orizzonte  tutto  biancheggiava 

Nell'  oriente,  e  eransi  gia  mosse 

L'Ore,  e  col  carro,  in  cui  la  luce  stava, 

Giungevano  i  cavai,  vedendo  rosse 

Le  membra  del  celeste  bue  levato, 

Dall'  arnica  Titonia  accompagnato  (vii,  94). 

Only  three  stanzas  after  this  striking  imitation  comes  another 
passage  in  which  Chaucer  certainly  remembered  the  Teseide.  It  is 
the  beautiful  address  of  Troilus  to  his  friend  in  expectation  of  death, 
and  the  deathbed  of  Arcita  is  what  was  in  the  poet's  mind.  Troilus 
sends  for  Pandarus  as  Arcita  for  Palemone 2  and  confides  to  him  his 
last  wishes.  He  speaks  of  "  the  fyr  and  flaumbe  funeral  "  that  is  to 
consume  his  body,3  of  "  the  pleyes  palestral "  (a  phrase4  which  Chaucer 

1  Dr.  B.  A.  Wise  (The  Influence  of  Statins  upon  Chaucer,  p.  21)  compares  Thebaid, 
xii,  1-4,  which  may  well  be  the  original  of  Boccaccio's  verses,  but  Chaucer  was 
rendering  Boccaccio  here. 

2  Troilus,  v,  280;  Teseide,  x,  37.  This  line  of  the  Troilus  closes  the  stanza  just 
noted  as  almost  literally  rendered  from  Teseide,  vii,  94,  and  the  speech  of  Troilus 
begins  after  two  stanzas  of  transition. 

8  v,  302-303;  cf.  Teside,  xi,  13-14. 

*  Troilus,  v,  304:  cf.  Teseide,  vii,  4  ("  un  palestral  giuoco  "),  27  ("  mio  palestral 
giuoco  ");  Theseus,  to  honor  the  dead  Arcita,  contends  "  nelTunta  palestra  "  at 


Chaucer's  Lollius  in 

got  from  the  Teseide).  and  requests  that  his  steed  may  be  offered  to 
Mars  and  his  arms  to  Pallas.1 
His  final  request  relates  to  his  ashes: 

The  poudre  in  which  myn  herte  ybrend  shal  tome, 

That  preye  I  thee  thou  take  and  it  conserve 

In  a  vessel  that  men  depth  an  urne, 

Of  gold,  and  to  my  lady  that  I  serve, 

For  love  of  whom  thus  pitously  I  sterve, 

So  yeve  it  hir,  and  do  me  this  plesaunce, 

To  preye  hir  kepe  it  for  a  remembraunce  (v,  309-315). 

Egeo  vi  ritorno  il  di  seguente, 

E  con  pietosa  man  tutte  raccolse 

Le  ceneri  da  capo  prima  spente 

Con  molto  vino,  e  di  terra  le  tolse, 

Ed  in  un'  urna  d'oro  umilemente 

Le  mise,  e  quella  in  cari  drappi  invoke, 

E  nel  tempio  di  Marte  fe'  guardare 

Fin  ch'altro  loco  le  potesse  dare  (xi,  58).* 

Palemone  has  a  temple  built, 

Ed  in  quel  voile  che  '1  cener  guardato 

Fosse  d'Arcita,  in  eterna  memoria 

Del  suo  valore  e  della  sua  vittoria  (xi,  69). 

In  the  midst  of  the  temple  was  set  up  a  column, 

sopra  la  qual  d'oro  lucente 
Un'  urna  fu  discretamente  sita: 
Dentro  la  qual  la  cenere  tepente 
Fece  servare  del  suo  amico  Arcita  (xi,  90)  .3 

Troilus  ends  with  a  prayer  to  Mercury: 

And,  god  Mercurie,  of  me  now,  woful  wrecche, 

The  soule  gyde,  and  whan  thee  list  it  fecche!  (v,  321-322). 

the  "giuochi"  (xi,  59,  62).  Teseide,  xi,  62,  is  cited  by  Young,  The  Origin  and 
Development  of  the  Story  of  Troilus  and  Creseyde,  p.  177  (see  Skeat  on  Troilus,  v, 
304).    Cf.  Wise,  The  Influence  of  Statius  upon  Chaucer,  pp.  21-22. 

1  v,  306-308;  cf.  Teseide,  xi,  35,  52,  55-56  (see  Skeat  on  Troilus,  v,  306). 

2  This  comparison  is  made  by  Young,  pp.  177-178  (cf.  Wise,  pp.  21-22;  Cum- 
mings,  p.  79). 

3  Cf.  the  argument  of  Teseide,  xi;  also  (for  urns),  ii,  74,  81  (called  vaselli  in  ii, 
83). 


ii2  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

This  is  a  plain  reminiscence  of  Arcita's  prayer  to  the  same  god,1  as 
well  of  his  wish  for  sacrifice  to  be  made  to  him:  — 

Amici  can,  io  me  ne  vo  dicerto, 
Perch'  io  vorrei  a  Mercurio  litare, 
Acrid  che  esso,  per  si  fatto  merto, 
In  luogo  ameno  piacciagli  portare 
Lo  spirto  mio  (x,  89). 

The  inscription  on  Arcita's  urn,  in  which  the  urn  itself  is  made  to 
speak  the  epitaph,  is  justly  admired  by  every  reader: 

Io  servo  dentro  a  me  le  reverende 

Del  buon  Arcita  ceneri,  per  cui 

Debito  sagrificio  qui  si  rende. 

E  chiunque  ama,  per  esempio  lui 

Pigli,  se  amor  di  soverchio  V  accende: 

Perocche  dicer  pud:  qual  se'  io  fui, 

E  per  Emilia  usando  il  mio  valore 

Morii:  dunque  ti  guarda  da  Amore  (xi,  91). 

Chaucer  remembered  this  epitaph  when  he  wrote  the  very  different 
stanza,  still  more  beautiful,  in  which  Troilus  addresses  those  lovers 
in  future  days  who  shall  pass  by  his  tomb: 

O  ye  lovers  that  heigh  upon  the  wheel 

Ben  set  of  Fortune  in  good  aventure, 

God  leve  that  ye  finde  ay  love  of  steel, 

And  longe  mot  your  lyf  in  ioye  endure! 

But  whan  ye  comen  by  my  sepulture, 

Remembreth  that  your  felawe  resteth  there; 

For  I  lovede  eek,  though  I  unworthy  were  (iv,  323-329). 

Chaucer's  use  of  the  Teseide  in  the  Troilus,  proved  by  the  foregoing 
examples,  seems  to  have  begun  in  his  First  Book.  It  appears  to  be 
discernible  in  the  quotation  that  Pandarus  makes  from  Oenone's 
letter: 

"  Phebus,  that  first  fond  art  of  medicyne," 

Quod  she,  "  and  coude  in  every  wightes  care 

Remede  and  reed,  by  herbes  he  knew  fyne, 

Yet  to  him-self  his  conninge  was  ful  bare; 

For  love  hadde  him  so  bounden  in  a  snare, 

Al  for  the  doughter  of  the  kinge  Admete, 

That  al  his  craft  ne  coude  his  sorwe  bete  "  (i,  659-665). 

1  Teseide,  x,  93-98. 


Chaucer's  Lollius  113 

This,  as  Skeat  remarks,  is  "  not  at  all  a  literal  translation  "  of  Hero- 
ides,  v,  149-152,  though  it  "  gives  the  general  sense." 

Quaecumque  herba  potens  ad  opem  radixque  medendi 

Utilis  in  toto  nascitur  orbe,  mea  est. 
Me  miseram,  quod  amor  non  est  medicabilis  herbis! 

Deficior  prudens  artis  ab  arte  mea. 
Ipse  repertor  opis  vaccas  pavisse  Pheraeas 

Fertur  et  e  nostro  saucius  igne  fuit. 
Quod  nee  graminibus  tellus  fecunda  creandis 

Nee  deus,  auxilium  tu  mihi  ferre  potes  (v,  147-154). 

The  words  of  Palemone  in  Teseide,  iii,  25,  may  have  influenced  Chaucer 
here: 

O  quanto  ne  sarieno  a  tal  fedita 

Gli  argomenti  esculapii  buoni  e  sani, 

II  qual  dicien  che  tornerebbe  in  vita 

Con  erbe  i  lacerati  corpi  umani! 

Ma  che  dich'  io?    Poiche  Apollo,  sentita 

Cotal  saetta,  che  i  succhi  mondani 

Tutti  conobbe,  non  seppe  vedere 

Medela  a  se  che  potesse  valere. 

Cf .  Teseide,  iv,  46  (Arcita's  words  this  time,  in  a  prayer  to  Apollo) : 

Siccome  te  alcuna  volta  Amore 
Costrinse  it  chiaro  cielo  abbandonare, 
E  lungo  Anfriso  in  forma  di  pastor e 
Del  grande  Admeto  gli  armenti  guar  dare,1 
Cosi  or  me  il  possente  signore 
Qui  in  Atene  ha  fatto  ritornare, 
Contra  al  mandato  che  mi  fe'  Teseo 
Allora  ch'a  Peritoo  mi  rendeo. 

In  Book  ii,  it  is  worth  while  to  compare  verses  50-56  with  three 
beautiful  stanzas  in  the  Teseide. 

In  May,  that  mother  is  of  monthes  glade, 

That  fresshe  flowers,  blewe  and  whyte  and  rede, 

Ben  quike  agayn,  that  winter  dede  made, 

And  ml  of  bawme  is  fletinge  every  mede; 

When  Phebus  doth  his  brighte  bemes  sprede 

Right  in  the  whyte  Bole,  it  so  bitidde 

As  I  shal  singe,  on  Mayes  day  the  thridde  (ii,  50-56). 

1  See  also  Teseide,  vi,  55;  x,  13,  25. 


ii4  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

Febo,  salendo  con  li  suoi  cavalli, 
Del  del  teneva  V  umile  animate 
Che  Europa  portd  senza  intervalli 
La  dove  il  nome  suo  dimora  a  vale; 
E  con  lui  insieme  grazi'osi  stalli 
Venus  facea  de'  passi  con  che  sale: 
Perche  rideva  il  cielo  tutto  quanto 
D'Amon  che  'n  pesce  dimorava  intanto. 

Da  questa  lieta  vista  delle  stelle 
Prendea  la  terra  grazi'osi  effetti, 
E  rivestiva  le  sue  parti  belle 
Di  nuove  erbette  e  di  vaghi  fioretti; 
E  le  sue  braccia  le  piante  novelle 
Avean  di  fronde  rivestite,  e  stretti 
Eran  dal  tempo  gli  alberi  a  fiorire 
Ed  a  far  frutto,  e  '1  mondo  rimbellire. 

E  gli  uccelletti  ancora  i  loro  amori 

Incominciato  avien  tutti  a  cantare, 

Giulivi  e  gai  nelle  fronde  e  fiori; 

E  gli  animali  nol  potean  celare, 

Anzi  '1  mostravan  con  sembianti  fuori; 

E'  giovinetti  lieti,  che  ad  amare 

Eran  disposti,  sentivan  nel  core 

Fervente  piu  che  mai  crescere  amore  (iii,  5-7). 

One  is  also  reminded  of  the  opening  verses  of  The  Canterbury  Tales.1 
TraUus,  ii,  64-71,  has  a  certain  resemblance  to  Teseide,  iv,  73: 

The  swalwe  Proigne  with  a  sorwful  lay, 

Whan  morwe  com,  gan  make  hir  weymentinge, 

Why  she  forshapen  was;  and  ever  lay 

Pandare  abedde,  half  in  a  slomeringe, 

Til  she  so  neigh  him  made  hir  chiteringe, 

How  Tereus  gan  forth  hir  suster  take, 

That  with  the  noyse  of  hir  he  gan  awake, 

And  gan  to  calle  and  dresse  him  up  to  ryse  (ii,  64-71). 

Allor  sentendo  cantar  Filomena, 
Che  si  fa  lieta  del  morto  Tereo, 
Si  drizza  (iv,  73)  .2 

1  Where  Skeat  well  compares  Guido,  bk.  iv  (opening  passage),  ed.  1489,  sig.  d  2. 
Cf .  also  Petrarch,  Sonnet  8  in  Vita. 

2  Cited  by  Cummings,  p.  54.    Koeppel,  Anglia,  XIII,  184,  compares  Purga- 


Chaucer's  Lollius  115 

The  following  stanza  in  Pandarus'  description  of  the  prowess  of 
Troilus  (not  in  the  Filostrato)  appears  to  owe  something  to  the 
Teseide: 

Now  here,  now  there,  he  hunted  hem  so  faste, 

There  nas  but  Grekes  blood  and  Troilus: 

Now  hem  he  hurte,  and  hem  alle  doun  he  caste. 

Ay  where  he  went  it  was  arrayed  thus: 

He  was  hir  deeth,  and  sheld  and  lyf  for  us; 

That  as  that  day  ther  dorste  noon  withstonde, 

Whyl  that  he  held  his  blody  swerde  in  honde  (ii,  197-203). 

Esso  fen  tra  la  gente  piii  folta, 

E  colla  spada  si  fece  far  via; 

E  questo  qua,  e  quello  la  rivolta, 

Costui  abbatte,  e  quell'  altro  feria: 

E  combattendo  dimostra  la  molta 

Prodezza  che  Amor  nel  cor  gli  cria: 

E'  non  ne  giva  nullo  rispiarmando 

Ma  come  fulgor  tutti  spaventando  (viii,  81). 

Dr.  Cummings  (p.  55)  compares  — 

O  cruel  god,  O  dispitouse  Marte, 
O  Furies  three  of  helle,  on  yow  I  crye!  (ii,  435-436). 
with 

0  fiero  Marte,  o  dispettoso  iddio  (i,  58) ;  ! 
Marte  nella  sua  fredda  regione 

Colle  sue  furie  insieme  s'e  tomato  (iii,  1). 

In  Troilus,  iii,  720-721,  Venus  is  adjured  to  be  favorable  — 

For  love  of  him  thou  lovedest  in  the  shawe, 

1  mene  Adoon,  that  with  the  boor  was  slawe. 

This  may  possibly  have  been  suggested  by  Teseide,  vii,  43 : 

O  bella  Dea  del  buon  Vulcano  sposa, 
Per  cui  s'allegra  il  monte  Citerone, 

torio,  ix,  13-15.   I  compare  Anth.  Pal.,  v,  237.   Wise,  p.  63,  declares  that  Petrarch's 
420!  sonnet  (in  Morte)  is  the  source  of  Troilus,  "  ii,  50  f.  and  64  f.": 

Zefiro  toma,  e'l  bel  tempo  rimena 

Ei  fioii  e  l'erbe,  sua  dolce  famiglia, 

E  garrir  Progne,  e  pianger  Filomena, 

E  primavera  Candida  e  vermiglia. 
1  Wise,  p.  62.    In  Troilus,  iv,  22-24,  it  is  impossible  to  doubt  that  Chaucer 
remembered  Dante,  Inferno,  ix,  45  if. 


n6  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

Deh,  i'  ti  prego  che  mi  sii  pietosa 

Per  quello  amor  che  portasti  ad  Adone.1 

At  all  events,  Chaucer  thought  well  enough  of  the  passage  to  translate 
it  pretty  literally  in  the  Knight's  Tale,  A,  2221-2225: 

Fairest  of  faire,  o  lady  myn,  Venus, 
Doughter  of  love  and  spouse  of  Vulcanus, 
Thou  glader  of  the  mount  of  Citheroun, 
For  thilke  love  thou  haddest  to  Adoun, 
Have  pitee  of  my  bittre  teres  smerte. 

Chaucer's  confusion  of  Tithonus  with  "  the  sonne  Tytan "  in 
Troilus,  iii,  1464-1470,  may  be  due  to  Boccaccio's  form  Titon  for 
Tithonus  in  Teseide,  iv.  72: 

E  sempre  si  svegliava  allora 
Che  de  Titon  partita  vien  V  Aurora.2 

Skeat  compares  Heroides,  xviii,  111-112,  but  omits  114,  which  is  very 
pertinent;  "  Et  querimur  parvas  noctibus  esse  moras."  We  should 
certainly  add  Amores,  i,  13,  which  not  only  concerns  Tithonus  and 
Aurora  but  contains  the  original  of  certain  lines  in  Troilus'  address 
to  Night: 

Wei  oughte  bestes  pleyne  and  folk  thee  chyde 
That,  ther-as  day  with  labour  wolde  us  breste, 
That  thou  thus  fleest,  and  deynest  us  nought  reste!  (iii,  1433-143  5). 

Cf.  Amores,  i,  13,  175.,  and  in  particular: 

Prima  bidente  vides  oneratos  arva  colentes, 
Prima  vocas  tardos  sub  iuga  panda  boves  (11-12). 

Troilus,  v,  8-12,  is  manifestly  a  close  translation  from  the  Teseide: 

The  golden-tressed  Phebus  heighe  on-lofte 
Thryes  hadde  al  with  his  bemes  shene 
The  snowes  molte,  and  Zephirus  as  ofte 
Ybrought  ayein  the  tendre  leves  grene 
Sin,  etc. 

1  Cf.  Teseide,  vi,  42: 

Ne"  crede  alcun  che  si  bel  fosse  Adone 
Di  Cinira,  da  Vener  tanto  amato. 

2  Cummings,  p.  70.  Cf.,  however,  Purgatorio,  ix,  1-3;  Petrarch,  Sonnet  23  (in 
Morte). 


Chaucer's  Lollius  117 

II  sole  avea  due  volte  dissolute 
Le  nevi  agli  alti  poggi,  ed  altrettante 
Zefiro  aveva  le  frondi  rendute 
Ed  i  be'  fiori  alle  spogliate  piante, 
Poiche,  etc.  (ii,  i).1 

Chaucer's  description  of  Cressida  may  owe  something  to  Boccac- 
cio's description  of  Emilia.  I  will  not  insist  on  the  resemblance  be- 
tween Troilus,  v,  809-812,  and  Teseide,  xii,  54: 

And  ofte-tyme  this  was  hir  manere, 

To  gon  ytressed  with  hir  heres  clere 

Doun  by  hir  coler  at  hir  bak  bihinde, 

Which  with  a  thred  of  gold  she  wolde  binde  (v,  800-812). 

Dico  che  li  suoi  crini  parean  d'oro, 

Non  per  treccia  ristretti  ma  soluti, 

E  pettinati  si  che  in  fra  loro 

Non  n'  era  un  torto,  e  cadean  sostenuti 

Sopra  li  candidi  omeri,  ne  foro 

Prima  ne  poi  si  be'  giammai  veduti: 

Ne  altro  sopra  quelli  ella  portava 

Ch'  una  corona  ch'  assai  si  stimava  (xii,  54)  .2 

But  his  comment  that  Cressida's  joined  brows  were  the  only  defect  in 
her  beauty  certainly  reminds  one  of  the  particularity  with  which  Boc- 
caccio notes  that  Emilia's  eyebrows  were  divided: 

La  fronte  sua  era  ampia  e  spaziosa, 

E  bianca  e  piana  e  molto  dihcata, 

Sotto  la  quale  in  volta  tortuosa, 

Quasi  di  mezzo  cerchio  terminata, 

Eran  due  ciglia  piii  che  altra  cosa 

Nerissime  e  sottil,  nelle  qua'  lata 

Bianchezza  si  videa  lor  dividendo, 

Ne  '1  debito  passavan  se  estendendo  (xii,  55). 

Professor  Root  has  discovered  that  verses  807-826  owe  much  to 
Josephus  Iscanus,  iv,  156-162; 3  but  Chaucer  could  never  have  un- 
riddled the  joined  eyebrows 4  from  Joseph's  tangled  rhetoric  ("  Um- 

1  Cited  by  Wise,  p.  62,  who  notes  that  Boccaccio  is  imitating  Thebaid,  iv,  1-3, 
and  who  compares  also  Thebaid,  vii,  223-226.    See  Rossetti,  p.  232. 

2  Hamilton,  p.  79,  compares  Troilus,  v,  809-812,  with  Teseide,  vii,  65, 1-2.  See 
Young,  pp.  1 1 7-1 18. 

*  See  Cummings,  p.  80. 

4  On  the  eyebrows  see  Krapp,  Modern  Language  Notes,  XIX,  235;  Hamilton, 


u8  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

braeque  minoris  Delicias  oculus  iunctos  suspendit  in  arcus  ")  unless  he 
had  found  that  detail  plainly  expressed  in  Benoit  or  Guido  or  Dares. 

"  They  writen  that  hire  syen  "  (v,  816)  suggests  the  words  of 
Dares  ("  hos  se  vidisse,"  cap.  12),  but  it  may  likewise  echo  Boccac- 
cio's address  to  the  Muses  when  he  is  about  to  describe  Emilia's 
"  beauties  ":  —  "  Voi  le  vedeste,  e  so  che  le  sapete  "  (xii.  52). 

We  may  note  that  Boccaccio  gives  a  portrait  of  Palemone  in  Teseide, 
iii,  49,  of  Arcita  in  iii,  50. 

The  attack  on  the  heathen  Gods  in  Troilus,  v,  1850,  185  2-1 853, 
may  owe  something  to  Emilia's  blasphemy: 

O  dispietati  iddii  senza  mercede, 

Or  che  e  questo  che  v'  e  in  piacere? 

Dov'  e  l'amore  antico,  ove  la  fede 

Che  solevate  portare  a'  mondani?  t 

Ella  n'  e  gita  con  li  venti  vani  (xi,  42). 

This  passage  in  Chaucer  comes  only  four  stanzas  after  his  borrowing 
of  Teseide,  xi,  1-3  (Troilus,  v,  1807-18 2 7). 

A  few  trifles  (most  or  all  of  doubtful  validity)  may  be  added:  — 
Tr otitis,  ii,  816  (Flexippe),  Teseide,  viii,  43  (Plessippo);  Troilus,  iii 
1427-1428,  Teside,  iv,  14  (Wise,  pp.  n-12);  Troilus,  iv,  789-790, 
Teseide,  x,  94;  Troilus,  iv,  1586  (proverb),  Teseide,  xii,  n;  Troilus, 
v,  599-602,  Teseide,  iii,  1  (Wise,  p.  23,  well  compares  Dante,  Inferno, 
xxx,  1-3) -1 

Troilus,  ii,  967-972,  closely  resembles  Teseide,  ix,  28,  but  really 
comes  from  Filostrato,  ii,  80.  In  like  manner,  Troilus,  iii,  13 10-13 18, 
is  closer  to  Filostrato,  iii,  31,  33,  than  to  Teseide,  xii,  76. 

The  general  and  particular  influence  of  the  Teseide  on  the  Troilus 
may  be  discerned  in  the  use  of  a  number  of  more  or  less  elaborate 
astronomical  and  mythological  definitions  of  time.  Such  things  are 
hardly  found  in  the  Filostrato.2  Examples  from  the  Teseide*  are: 
ii,  1;  iii,  5-7,  43;  iv,  1;  v,  103;  vii,  94;  ix,  29;  x,  1,  88;  xii,  64,  81. 

in  the  same  journal,  XX,  80;  Curry,  The  Middle  English  Ideal  of  Personal  Beauty, 
pp.  48-49. 

1  Note  that  Chaucer  may  well  have  remembered  Inferno,  xxx,  1-12,  when  he 
wrote  Troilus,  iv,  1538-1540. 

2  I  have  noted  only  v,  68-69  (Troilus,  v,  647-648);  i,  18  (Troilus,  i,  155-165) 
is  not  the  same  kind  of  thing. 

8  Cf.  Ninfale  Fiesolano,  iv,  1. 


Chaucer 's  Lollius  119 

The  device  took  Chaucer's  fancy,  and  he  used  it  freely,  not  only  in 
the  Troilus  but  in  his  later  poetry  as  well.  At  least  two  of  the  passages 
from  the  Teseide  appear  in  the  Troilus:  ii,  1  (Troilus,  v,  8-1 1),  and 
vii,  94  (Troilus,  v,  274-279) ;  and  iii,  5-7,  may  have  influenced  Troilus, 
ii,  50-56  (see  p.  113).  Other  examples  from  the  Troilus  are:  ii,  904- 
910;  iii,  1415-1420;  iv,  1590-1593  (cf.  v,  1188-1190);  v,  1016-1020, 
1107-nio;  cf.  iii,  624-626  (see  C.  T.,  A  3514-3521).  The  following 
passages  in  The  Canterbury  Tales  illustrate  his  fondness  for  this  kind 
of  rhetorical  adornment:  —  Prologue,  1  ff.  (cf.  Teseide,  iii,  5-7;  Troilus, 
ii,  50-56);  Knight's  Tale,  A  1491-1496;  introduction  to  Man  of  Law's 
Tale,  B  1-15;  Nun's  Priest's  Tale,  B,  4377-4389;  Merchant's  Tale, 
E,  1 795-1 799,  1885-1887,  2219-2224;  Squire's  Tale,  F,  47-51,  263- 
265>  385-387,  671-672;  Franklin's  Tale,  F,  1016-1018,  1245-1255; 
Parson's  Prologue,  I,  1-12. 

In  some  of  these  examples  there  is  more  than  a  suggestion  of  the 
humorous  consciousness  on  Chaucer's  part  that  he  is  indulging  in 
what  Scott  called  the  "  big  bow-wow  style."  *  This  comes  out  in  grati- 
fying fashion  in  The  Franklin's  Tale: 

Til  that  the  brighte  sonne  loste  his  hewe, 

For  thorisonte  hath  reft  the  sonne  his  light, 

This  is  as  muche  to  seye  as  it  was  night  (F  1016-1018). 

The  same  spirit  (which  some  critics  mistake  for  naivete)  is  discernible 
in  Troilus,  ii,  904-910: 

The  dayes  honour  and  the  hevenes  ye,2 
The  nightes  fo,  —  al  this  clepe  I  the  sonne  !  — 
Gan  westren  faste,  and  downward  for  to  wrye, 
As  he  that  hadde  his  dayes  cours  yronne,  etc. 

Boccaccio's  fondness  for  such  figures  in  the  Teseide  is  due  in  large 
part  to  his  admiration  for  the  Thebaid,  in  which  they  are  common. 
As  a  specimen  we  may  take  a  passage  which  Boccaccio  seems  to  have 
reworked  in  the  Teseide,  vii,  94: 

Nondum  cuncta  polo  vigil  inclinaverat  astra 

Ortus,  et  instantem  cornu  tenuiore  videbat 

Luna  diem,  trepidas  ubi  iam  Tithonia  nubes 

Discutit  ac  reduci  magnum  parat  aethera  Phoebo  (xii,  1-4)  .3 

1  Compare  B  1-15  with  B  4383-4389.  8  Cf.  p.  no,  above. 

2  "  Mundi  oculus,"  Ovid,  Met.,  iv,  228. 


120  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

Other  examples  from  the  Thebaid  are:  —  i,  97-99,  336-346,  692-693; 
ii,  134-140,  527-528;  iii,  33-39,  440-441;  iv,  1-3,  680-682;  v,  85-89, 
296-298,  459-460,  476-477;  vi,  25-27,  238-241;  vii,  470-473;  viii, 
271-274;  x,  1-2;  xii,  50-51,  228-229. 

No  doubt  both  Boccaccio  and  Chaucer  felt  in  this  matter  the  in- 
fluence of  Dante,  who  is  notably  fond  of  such  figures.  See  for  example, 
Inferno,  i,  37-40;  Purgatorio,  i,  19-21; l  ii,  1-9;  ix,  1-9;  xv,  1-9; 
xix,  1-6; 2  xxv,  1-3;  xxvii,  1-5;  xxx,  1-6;  Paradiso,  xx,  1-6;  xxix, 
1-6;  xxx,  1-9.  Cf.  also  Petrarch  Sonnets  8,  20,  28,  168  in  Vita; 
Canzone  in  Vita;  Sonnet  42  in  Morte. 

x  The  prayer  to  the  Virgin  in  Paradiso,  xxxiii,  1  ff.,  is  freely  used  (as  everybody 
knows)  in  The  Second  Nun's  Tale,  G  36  ff.  Vv.  13-15  are  not  there  used,  but  are 
taken  as  part  of  Troilus'  address  to  Love  in  iii,  1 262-1 263  (see  Skeat;  Koeppel, 
Anglia,  XIV,  230).  "The  well-willy  planete"  in  this  same  address  (iii,  1257)  re- 
minds one  of  Purgatorio,  i,  19  ("  Lo  bel  pianeta  die  ad  amar  conforta  " )  —  a 
passage  which  Chaucer  certainly  admired,  frr  he  uses  the  next  line  ("  Faceva  tutto 
rider  l'oriente  "  )  in  The  Knight's  Tale,  A  1494:  "  That  al  the  orient  laugheth  of 
the  light "  (Skeat).  It  is  proper  to  compare  also  The  Squire's  Tale,  F  272-274, 
with  Purgatorio,  i,  19-21: 

Lo  bel  pianeta  che  ad  amar  conforta 

Faceva  tutto  rider  l'oriente, 

Velando  i  Pesci  ch'erano  in  sua  scorta. 

Now  dauncen  Venus  lusty  children  dere, 
For  in  the  Fish  hir  lady  sat  ful  hye 
And  loketh  on  hem  with  a  frendly  ye. 

*  This  passage  may  have  been  in  Chaucer's  mind  when  he  elaborated  Filostrato, 
iii,  42,  1-2,  into  Troilus,  iii,  1415-1420. 


Chaucer's  Lollius  121 

APPENDIX  III 

The  Teseide  and  the  Thebaid 

For  reference  I  have  made  a  running  analysis  of  the  Teseide,  noting 
parallel  passages  in  the  Thebaid.  The  table  is  the  result  of  my  own 
comparison  of  the  two,  but  in  checking  it  up  I  have  freely  used  the 
studies  of  Crescini l  and  Wise,2  and  I  hereby  disclaim  originality.  No 
attempt  is  made  to  estimate  the  intermediate  influence  of  the  Roman 
de  Thebes.3 

Book  I 

After  five  stanzas  of  invocation,  Boccaccio  tells  the  story  of  the 
Amazons.  These  warlike  ladies  kill  their  husbands  and  male  relatives 
and  establish  a  kingdom  of  women.  Hippolyta  is  elected  queen. 
Theseus  sails  against  them  and  conquers  their  realm  after  a  hard 
fight.  He  marries  Hippolyta  and  other  Athenians  take  wives  from 
among  the  Amazons  (sts.  6-138).  When  the  book  closes,  Theseus 
and  his  men  are  living  in  idleness  and  luxury  in  the  Amazonian  land. 

For  this  First  Book  Boccaccio  got  his  material  largely  from  Hyp- 
sipyle's  account  of  the  Lemnian  women  in  Thebaid,  v,  49-498.  Statius 
does  not  call  the  Lemnian  women  Amazons,  but  he  lets  Hypsipyle 
make  the  comparison: 

Amazonio  Scythiam  fervere  tumultu 
Lunatumque  putes  agmen  descendere,  ubi  arma 
Indulget  pater  et  saevi  movet  ostia  belli  (v,  144-146). 

Boccaccio  did  not  need  the  comparison,  but  it  certainly  encouraged 
him.  He  has  made  an  easy  and  obvious  combination  of  the  Lemnian 
story  with  the  orthodox  legend  of  Theseus  and  Hippolyta,  which  is 
sufficiently  set  forth  in  the  Thebaid,  xii,  163-164,  519-539,  578-579, 
761-762.  The  campaign  of  Theseus  against  the  Amazons  in  the 
Teseide  is  more  or  less  imitated  from  Statius's  account  of  the  attack 
of  the  Argonauts  on  the  women  warriors  of  Lemnos. 

1  Contribute  agli  Studi  sul  Boccaccio,  Turin,  1887,  pp.  220-247.  Cf.  Giornale 
Storico,  XXXVIII,  447-449. 

2  The  Influence  of  Statius  upon  Chaucer,  Baltimore,  191 1  (see  especially  pp.  78- 

US). 

3  See  Crescini,  as  above;  Savj-Lopez,  Giornale  Storico,  XXXVIII,  57-78. 


122  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

i,  6-7.  Certain  fierce  women  of  Scythia  disdain  to  live  under  the 
rule  of  men  and  take  counsel  to  slay  their  husbands  and  male  relatives 
after  the  example  of  the  granddaughters  of  Belus  (the  Danaids).  So, 
in  S  v,  85  ff.,  Polyxo  exhorts  the  Lemnian  women:  "  Firmate  animos 
et  pellite  sexum  "  (105).  B  7  mentions  the  Danaids  and  so  does 
Polyxo  (S  1 1 7-1 20). 

E  come  fer  le  nipoti  di  Belo 

Nel  tempo  cheto  agli  novelli  sposi, 

Cos!  costor  ciascuna  (i,  7). 

Potuitne  ultricia  Graiis 
Virginibus  dare  tela  pater,  laetusque  dolorum 
Sanguine  secures  iuvenum  perfundere  somnos? 
At  nos  vulgus  iners?    (v,  n  7-1 20). 

i,  7,  29-33.  The  Amazons  killed  fathers,  brothers,  sons,  and  hus- 
bands. So  the  Lemnians  in  S  v,  200-201,  206  ff.,  235-238,  etc. 

i.  8.  Ippolita  is  chosen  queen.  In  S  v,  320-325  the  Lemnians  choose 
Hypsipyle  queen. 

i,  18.  Theseus  sails  against  the  Amazons.  In  S  v,  335  ff.,  the 
Argonauts  sail  up  to  Lemnos. 

i,  20-33.  See  i,  7,  above. 

i,  47-48.  The  Amazons  have  a  castle  near  the  shore  and  other 
defences,  and  try  to  hold  them  against  the  invaders.    Cf.  S  v,  350-356. 

i,  52.  They  throw  fire  and  great  stones  down  upon  the  ships.  Cf. 
S  v,  376-380- 

i,  61-65.  Theseus  harangues  his  men.  So  Jason  in  S  v,  403-409. 
Theseus,  of  course,  is  present  among  the  Argonautic  assailants  (v,  432). 

i,  66-67.  Theseus  and  others  leap  overboard  into  the  water.  Cf. 
S  v,  402 :  "  medias  ardet  descendere  in  undas."    Cf .  also  S,  vii,  430  ff. 

i,  129-138.  Love  and  marriage  between  the  Amazons  and  the  in- 
vaders.   The  strangers  are  received  with  feasting.    Cf.  S  v  445-451. 

i,  134.  The  queen  of  the  Amazons  (Ippolita)  marries  Theseus.  Cf. 
S  v,  453-467  (Hypsipyle  and  Jason).  In  B  there  are  new  sacrifices  to 
Venus  (134) :  cf.  S  v,  449-450  ("  tunc  primus  in  aris  Ignis  "). 

The  residence  of  the  Athenians  for  some  time  in  the  Amazonian 
land,  with  which  Boccaccio's  First  Book  closes  and  his  Second  Book 
begins,  is  like  that  of  the  Argonauts  in  Lemnos  (S  v,  459-460). 


Chaucer's  Lollius  123 

Book  II 

ii,  1-9.  Pirithous  reproves  Theseus  for  lingering  uxoriously  in  the 
land  of  the  Amazons,  and  Theseus  sets  sail  for  Athens. 

Detumuere  animi  maris,  et  clementior  Auster 

Vela  vocat,  ratis  ipsa  moram  portusque  quietos 

Odit  et  adversi  tendit  retinacula  saxi. 

Inde  fugam  Minyae,  sociosque  appellat  Iason  (v,  468-471). 

In  the  next  four  stanzas  (10-13)  Boccaccio  gives  a  brief  summary  of 
the  results  of  the  expedition  of  the  Seven  against  Thebes  compiled 
from  several  different  places  in  the  Thebaid:  —  death  of  Amphiaraus 
(vii,  794-823),  of  Tydeus  (viii,  end),  of  Hippomedon  (ix,  4S5-S6S)> 
of  Parthenopaeus  (ix,  877  ff.),  of  Capaneus  (x,  927-939),  of  Eteocles 
and  Polynices  (xi,  552-573);  Adrastus  flees  to  Argos  (xi,  757-761); 
Creon  becomes  king  of  Thebes  (xi,  648-655)  and  refuses  burial  to  the 
dead  Greeks  (xi,  661-664). 

Stanzas  14-83  of  the  Teseide  are  well  accounted  for  by  Book  Twelve 
of  the  Thebaid,  149-807.  They  tell  of  the  embassy  of  the  Grecian 
widows,  the  expedition  of  Theseus  against  Creon,  the  death  of  Creon, 
the  sack  of  Thebes,  and  the  obsequies  of  the  Greek  chieftains.  There 
are  countless  imitations  and  bits  of  translation,  as  was  to  be  expected, 
but  we  need  not  take  them  up  in  detail.1  One  of  them,  however,  is 
worth  mentioning,  for  it  marks  a  point  of  contact  with  the  Amazonian 
story.  In  stanza  52,  Creon,  defying  Theseus,  informs  him  that  he  is 
not  now  fighting  against  women.    So  in  S  xii,  761-762: 

Non  cum  peltiferis,  ait,  haec  tibi  pugna  puellis, 
Virgineas  nee  crede  manus,  etc. 

With  stanza  85  of  the  Second  Book  Boccaccio  begins  to  be  original, 
for  here  is  the  first  appearance  of  Palemone  and  Arcita.  From  this 
point  to  the  end  of  the  book  (sts.  84-99)  there  is  little  imitation  of  the 
Thebaid.  These  twenty  stanzas  tell  how  the  two  young  Thebans  were 
found  among  the  dead,  taken  to  Athens,  and  imprisoned  for  life.  One 
fine  passage  in  the  Thebaid,  however,  has  left  its  mark  on  this  passus 
of  the  Teseide.  It  is  xii,  22-32,  on  which  Boccaccio  had  his  eye  in 
writing  stanza  85.  Note  especially  the  striking  sentence 
Frigida  digeritur  strages  (xii,  29). 

1  See  Crescini,  pp.  230-234;  Wise,  pp.  78  ff. 


124  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

Book  III 

Book  III  tells  how  Palemone  and  Arcita  fell  in  love  with  Emilia, 
and  how  Pirithous  procured  Arcita's  release  from  prison.  Here  we 
need  expect  no  influence  from  the  Thebaid.  With  iii,  66,  cf.  S  i,  n-12, 
and  x,  900-901. 

Book  IV 

Book  IV  describes  Arcita's  wanderings:  he  finally  returns  to  Athens 
and  takes  service  with  Theseus,  under  the  name  of  Penteo.  This 
name  is  that  of  a  famous  Theban  king  —  Pentheus,  mentioned  in 
Thebaid  iv,  565;  vii,  211.  I  note  two  slight  cases  of  imitation  in  de- 
tails of  Book  iv: 

Dove  son  ora  le  case  eminenti 
Del  nostro  primo  Cadmo?  (iv,  14). 

Sed  nee  veteris  cum  regia  Cadmi 
Fulmineum  in  cinerem  monitis  Iunonis  iniquae 
Consedit  (iii,  183-185). 

Ove  di  Dionisio  appaion  ora, 

Misero  a  me,  gli  trionfi  indiani?  (iv,  15). 

Ceu  modo  gemmiferum  thyrso  populatus  Hydaspen 

Eoasque  domos,  nigri  vexilla  triumphi 

Liber  et  ignotos  populis  ostenderet  Indos  (viii,  237-239). 

Book  V 

Book  V,  in  the  first  thirty-three  stanzas,  describes  the  frantic  jeal- 
ousy of  the  imprisoned  Palemone,  and  tells  how  he  escapes  and  takes 
refuge  in  a  wood,  where,  as  it  happens,  Arcita  is  sleeping,  So  far  there 
is  scant  opportunity  for  imitation.  In  v,  13,  however,  Boccaccio 
mentions  Tisiphone,  summoned  by  Oedipus,  etc.  (S  i,  46-130).  With 
stanza  34  we  again  connect  with  the  Thebaid. 

v,  34-85.  Palemone  discovers  the  sleeping  Arcita.  They  fall  to 
fighting,  and  are  separated  by  Theseus.  Here  there  are  manifest  re- 
semblances to  the  struggle  of  Tydeus  and  Polynices  in  the  courtyard 
of  Adrastus's  palace  and  their  separation  by  Adrastus  in  the  first 


Chaucer7 s  Lollius  125 

book  of  the  Thebaid  (376-481). 1  Note  that  Tydeus  discovers  Poly- 
nices  asleep,  and  that  Adrastus  (like  Theseus  in  Boccaccio)  does  not 
know  who  the  combatants  are.  Again,  they  are  both  exiles.  Theseus 
(st.  83)  like  Adrastus  (438-446)  demands  the  names  of  the  rivals  and 
the  cause  of  their  quarrel.  Note,  too,  the  kindness  of  both  Theseus 
(st.  85)  and  Adrastus  (435-481)  in  word  and  deed. 

v,  86-105.  The  combatants  disclose  their  identity  and  the  ground 
of  their  quarrel.  Theseus  pardons  them,  suggests  a  tournament  to 
settle  the  question,  and  gives  the  rivals  hospitality  in  his  palace.  Here 
there  is  still  a  certain  likeness  to  the  Adrastus  episode  in  Thebaid  i. 
In  both  cases  the  ruler  grants  hospitality  to  the  two  (B  v,  104-105;  S 
i,  481  ff.).  Note  also  that  Theseus  promises  to  give  Emilia  to  either 
Palemone  or  Arcita,  and  that  Adrastus  marries  Tydeus  and  Polynices 
to  his  daughters  (Thebaid,  ii,  134-261).  There  is  also  a  trace  of  Poly- 
nices' shame  with  reference  to  his  ancestry  (i,  673-681)  in  Palemone's 
reluctance  to  wed  Emilia  because 

10  son  di  tante  infamie  solo  erede 
De'  primi  miei  rimaso  (xii,  24). 

In  the  fight  in  the  wood  Boccaccio  also  has  his  eye  on  the  combat 
between  Eteocles  and  Polynices  in  Thebaid,  xi,  387  ff.  He  mentions 
them  in  v,  59: 

Qua'  fossero  poi  fra  loro  i  due  fratelli 
D'  Edippo  nati  non  cal  raccontare; 

11  fuoco  fe'  testimonianza  d'elli, 

Nel  qual  fur  messi  dopo  il  lor  mal  fare. 

This  refers  to  the  famous  incident  of  the  divided  flame  in  Thebaid, 
xii,  420-446.  With  Teseide,  v,  65-67,  cf.  Thebaid,  xi,  513-520.  That 
Arcita  thinks  Palemone  dead  (v,  68-69)  reminds  one  of  Thebaid,  xi, 
552-560,  though  the  spirit  of  the  incident  is  by  no  means  similar. 

Book  VI 

The  Sixth  Book  of  the  Teseide  recounts  the  muster  of  knights  for  the 
great  tournament.  It  is  mostly  occupied  with  a  list  of  the  "  barons  " 
and  their  description.  This  book  is  more  or  less  indebted  to  the  The- 
baid.   A  large  number  of  proper  names  come  from  that  poem.2    The 

1  Cf.  Savj-Lopez,  Giornale  Storico,  XXXVI,  63-66. 
8  Cf.  Crescini,  p.  243,  note  1. 


126  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

account  of  the  funeral  games  for  Archemorus  (vi)  —  used  later  by 
Boccaccio  extensively  in  Book  xi  —  is  drawn  on,  and  so  is  the  account 
of  the  muster  of  the  Seven.    Some  details  are  worth  noting. 

According  to  Boccaccio,  King  Licurgo  came  to  the  muster  in  black: 
he  was 

ancora  lagrimoso 
Per  la  morte  di  Ofelte  (vi,  14)  — 

that  is,  of  Opheltes  or  Archemorus,  whose  death  and  burial  are  de- 
scribed in  Thebaid  v-vi. 

"  Argeo  ed  Epidaurio  "  (vi,  19),  if  the  text  is  right,  looks  like  an 
error  based  on  Thebaid  vi,  912-913: 

"  Iamque  aderant  instructi  armis  Epidaurius  Agreus 
Et  nondum  fatis  Dircaeus  agentibus  exul  [sc.  Polynices]. 

Agamemnon  comes  to  Athens  in  a  chariot  drawn  by  four  great  bulls: 

Sopra  d'un  carro  da  quattro  gran  tori 
Tirato  dalT  Inachia  Agamennone 
Vi  venne  (vi,  21). 

He  had  a  black  beard  and  wore  a  bearskin  with  gleaming  claws  over 
his  armor: 

Non  armi  chiare,  non  mantel  lodato, 

Non  pettinati  crin,  non  ornamenti 

D'oro  o  di  pietre  aveva,  ma  legato 

D'orso  un  velluto  cuoio  con  lucenti 

Unghioni  al  collo,  il  quale  d'ogni  lato 

Ricoprien  l'armi  tutte  rugginenti  (vi,  22). 

Compare  the  tigerskin  which  Hippomedon  received  as  a  prize  in  the 
funeral  games: 

Tunc  genitus  Talao  [sc.  Adrastus]  victori  tigrin  inanem 

Ire  iubet,  fulvo  quae  circumfusa  nitebat 

Margine  et  extremos  auro  mansueverat  ungues  (vi,  721-724). 

This  same  passage  (cf.  S,  ix,  685-686)  is  also  imitated  in  Boccaccio's 
description  of  Evandro: l 

Ed  era  armato  d'armi  forti  e  fiere, 
E  un  cuoio,  per  mantel,  d'orso  piloso 
Libistrico,  le  cui  unghie  gia  nere 
Sott'  oro  eran  nascose  luminoso  (vi,  36). 

1  Evander  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Thebaid. 


Chaucer's  Lollius  127 

Cromi  or  Cromis  from  Etolia  is  described  in  Teseide,  vi,  27-29.  He 
rides  on  a  man-eating  horse: 

Sopra  Strimon  caval  di  Diomede, 
D'uomini  mangiator,  come  si  crede  (27). 

This  is  Chromis,  son  of  Hercules  (Thebaid,  vi,  346-350),  whose  horses 
in  the  chariot  race  at  the  funeral  games  were  "  Getici  pecus  Diomedis  " 
(348).  One  of  them  was  named  Strymon  (464).  Boccaccio  introduces 
the  creature  again  in  a  strange  incident  in  the  tournament  (viii,  120), 
to  which  we  shall  return  presently. 

Ippodamo  (st.  29)  comes  next  to  Cromi  in  Boccaccio's  list,  obviously 
because  they  are  brought  together  by  Statius  in  the  chariot-race: 
"  It  Chromis  Hippodamusque "  etc.  (S,  vi,  346-354,  436-490). 
Boccaccio  says  he  was  the  son  of  "  Eomonia  pulita,"  which  is  a  mis- 
reading of  S,  vi,  347 :  "  ab  Oenomao." 

Nestore  from  Pilos,  son  of  Neleo,  appears  in  st.  30.  He  is  still  a 
young  man.    This  is  from  the  muster  in  Thebaid,  iv: 

Avia  Dyme 
Mittit  opem  densasque  Pylos  Neleia  turmas; 
Nondum  nota  Pylos  iuvenisque  aetate  secunda 
Nestor,  et  ire  tamen  peritura  in  castra  negavit  (iv,  124-127). 

In  stanza  52  comes  "  Ida  Piseo,"  crowned  for  his  victory  in  the 
Olympic  Games. 

Prior  omnibus  Idas, 
Nuper  Olympiads  umbratus  tempora  ramis, 
Prosilit,  excipiunt  plausu  Pisaea  iuventus 
Eleaeque  manus  (vi,  553-556). 

He  is  a  contestant  in  the  footrace  at  the  games  for  Archemorus,  and 
accordingly  Boccaccio  represents  him  and  his  company  as  fast  runners 
(st.  53).  The  comparison  in  this  stanza  comes  from  what  is  said  of 
Parthenopaeus  in  Thebaid  vi,  568. 

Stanza  61  shows  a  close  translation  of  Thebaid,  vii,  340-342. 

Book  VII 

vii,  1-2 1.  The  kings  and  barons  assemble  in  the  theatre  (1-2)  — 
for  the  theatre  cf .  Thebaid,  vi,  249-264  —  and  Theseus  explains  the 
purpose  and  the  rules  of  the  tournament  in  a  speech  which  the  people 


128  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

applaud  (3-14).  The  two  companies  are  formed,  Arcita's  and  Pale- 
mone's  (15-21). 

In  sts.  22-93  we  have  the  prayers  of  Arcita,  Palemone,  and  Emilia, 
with  a  description  of  the  temples.  Here  Boccaccio  is  again  much  in- 
debted to  Statius.1 

vii,  23-28.  Arcita  prays  to  Mars.  With  the  vow  of  hair  and  beard 
(28)  cf.  Thebaid,  ii,  255;  vi,  198-201,  607-610;  viii,  487-488,  492-493. 

vii,  29.  Mars  was  in  his  great  and  horrible  "  ospizio  "  [in  Thrace], 
and  the  prayer  wings  its  way  thither.  The  personified  prayer  feels 
terror  at  the  sights  it  sees.  Cf.  Thebaid,  vii,  1-13,  when  Jupiter 
sends  Mercury  to  Thrace  with  a  message  to  Mars,  and  vii,  74-75 
(terror  of  Mercury). 

vii,  30-38.  Description  of  the  region  and  of  the  temple  of  Mars. 
Closely  translated  from  Thebaid,  vii,  34-63,  cf.  68. 

vii,  39-41.  Omens  observed  by  Arcita.  Partly  from  Thebaid,  vii, 
64-69  (cf.  ii,  260-261). 

vii,  42-49.  Palemone  prays  to  Venus. 

vii,  50.  The  prayer  flies  up  to  the  temple  on  Mount  Cithaeron 
(Citerone).  Here  Boccaccio  is  misled  by  the  resemblance  between  the 
names  Cythera  and  Cithaeron. 

Sopra  il  monte  Citerone, 

dove  si  posa 

Di  Citerea  il  tempio  e  la  magione 

Infra  altissimi  prini  alquanto  ombrosa  (st.  50). 

Mount  Cithaeron,  between  Boeotia  and  Attica,  is  often  mentioned  in 
the  Thebaid.    Note  especially  — 

Inde  plagam  qua  molle  sedens  in  plana  Cithaeron 
Porrigitur  lassumque  inclinat  ad  aequora  montem 
Praeterit  (i,  330-332) 

Arnica  Cithaeron 
Silva  rogis  (xii,  52-53). 

vii,  51-66.  Description  of  the  garden  and  temple  of  Venus,  also  of 
the  goddess  herself.  On  the  resemblance  to  the  Court  of  Love  tra- 
dition, see  Neilson,  who  remarks  the  parallel  to  Claudian.2    Though 

1  For  ceremonies,  prayers,  and  omens,  cf.  Thebaid,  ii,  244-261,  704  ff.;  viii, 
298  ff. 

2  The  Origins  and  Sources  of  the  Court  of  Love,  pp.  116-117,  15-17  ([Harvard] 
Studies  and  Notes  in  Philology  and  Literature,  VI). 


Chaucer's  Lollius  129 

sts.  51-66  are  not  from  the  Thebaid,  yet  the  suggestion  came  from  the 
passage  about  the  temple  and  region  of  Mars  (above-mentioned,  st. 
30) .  Then  Boccaccio  carried  out  the  suggestion  by  the  use  of  the  Court 
of  Love  tradition  and  of  miscellaneous  classical  material. 

vii,  67.  Venus  hears  Palemone's  prayer.  Strife  ensues  in  heaven 
between  her  and  Mars,  but  they  find  a  means  to  reconcile  his  petition 
with  Arcita's.    Cf.  Thebaid,  hi,  260-316;  x,  893-894. 

vii,  68-69.  Palemone  remains  at  his  devotions,  etc. 

vii,  70-76.  Emilia  makes  an  offering  to  Diana.  Description  of  the 
temple  and  the  rites.  With  st.  72  cf.  Thebaid,  ix,  573-574;  with  st.  75 
cf.  Thebaid,  iv,  452-454;  with  st.  76  cf.  Thebaid,  iv,  461-468. 

vii,  77-87.  Emilia's  prayer.  See  the  prayer  to  Diana  in  Thebaid, 
ix,  608  ff.  (cf.  vi,  633-637). 

vii,  88-93.  The  omen  to  Emilia.    With  st.  92  cf.  S,  ix,  595-596. 

vii,  94-145.  The  combatants  assemble  in  the  theatre,  and  all  is 
ready  for  the  tournament.  For  st.  94  cf.  Thebaid,  xii,  1-4;  for  the 
theatre  (108-110)  cf.  Thebaid,  vi,  249-264;  for  the  gathering  of  the 
people  to  see  the  show  (112)  cf.  Thebaid,  vi,  249-250,  etc. 

The  simile  of  the  Hon  in  st.  106  is  from  the  Thebaid,  iv,  494-499,  and 
that  of  the  wild  boar  in  st.  119  is  expanded  from  Thebaid,  xi,  530-531: 

Qual  per  lo  bosco  il  cinghiar  rovinoso, 
Poi  ch'  ha  di  dietro  a  se  sentiti  i  cani, 
Le  setole  levate,  etc,  (119). 

Fulmineos  veluti  praeceps  cum  comminus  egit 

Ira  sues  strictisque  erexit  tergora  saetis  (xi,  530-531). 

Book  VIII 

The  tournament  is  described  —  Arcita  is  victor.  There  are  131 
stanzas.  Much  of  this  is  mere  imitation  of  the  tournaments  in  the 
Old  French  chivalric  romances.  There  is  a  plethora  of  proper  names, 
many  of  them  invented  ad  hoc.  One  very  curious  incident  was  sug- 
gested by  Statius.  Cromis  rides  a  man-eating  horse.  In  the  tourna- 
ment 

Di  Cromis  il  roncione, 
Ch*  ancora  che  solea  si  ricordava 
Gli  uomin  mangiar,  pel  braccio  Palemone 
Co'  denti  prese  forte,  et  si  l'aggrava 


130  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

Col  duol,  che  '1  fece  alia  terra  cadere, 
Mai  grado  ch'  e'  n'avesse,  e  rimanere. 

E  quale  il  drago  talora  i  pulcini 
DelT  aquila  ne  porta  renitenti, 
O  fa  la  leonessa  i  leoncini 
Per  tema  degli  aguati  delle  genti; 
Cosi  faceva  quel  vibrando  i  crini, 
Forte  strignendo  Palemon  co'  denti; 
Cui  egli  aveva  preso  in  tal  maniera 
Che  maraviglia  aveva  chiunque  v'  era. 

E  se  non  fosse  ched  egli  fu  atato 

Da'  suoi  awersi,  il  caval  V  uccidea; 

A  cui  di  bocca  appena  fu  tirato, 

E  tratto  fuor  della  crudel  mislea, 

E  senza  alcuno  indugio  disarmato 

Per  Arcita,  che  rarme  sue  volea, 

Per  off erirle  a  Marte,  se  awenesse 

Ch'  a  lui  il  di  il  campo  rimanesse  (120-122). 

And  so  Palemone  lost  the  tournament  and  Arcita  was  declared  the 
victor.  In  the  Thebaid,  Hippodamus,  the  chief  antagonist  of  Chromis 
in  the  chariot  race  is  thrown: 

Sed  Thraces  equi  ut  videre  iacentem 
Hippodamum,  redit  ilia  fames,  iamiamque  trementem 
Partiti  furiis,  ni  frena  ipsosque  frementes 
Oblitus  palmae,  retro  Tirynthius  heros 
Torsisset  victusque  et  conlaudatus  abisset  (vi,  486-490). 

As  to  Chromis's  man-eating  horse  Strymon,  see  Teseide,  vi,  27,  and 
Thebaid,  vi  348,  464  (cf.  xii,  155-157). 


Book  IX 

In  stanzas  1-9  Boccaccio  still  imitates  Statius.  A  Fury  scares  the 
horse  of  the  victorious  Arcita,  who  is  thrown  and  desperately  hurt. 
So  in  the  Thebaid,  in  the  funeral  games,  a  monster  frightens  Arion, 
Adrastus'  steed,  which  is  driven  by  Polynices.  Polynices  is  thrown 
from  the  chariot  and  comes  near  being  killed  (vi,  491-512).  The 
monster  is  sent  by  Phoebus,  as  the  Fury  in  Boccaccio  is  sent  by  Venus. 
With  Teseide,  ix,  7-8: 


Chaucer's  Lollius  131 

II  qual  [sc.  Arcita's  horse]  per  ispavento  in  pie  levossi, 
Ed  indietro  cader  tutto  lasciossi. 

Sotto  il  qual  cadde  il  gia  contento  Arcita, 
E  il  forte  arcione  gli  premette  il  petto, 
E  si  il  ruppe,  che  una  ferita 
Tutto  pareva  il  corpo  al  giovinetto  — 

compare  Thebaid,  viii,  540-542 : 

Ruit  ille  [sc.  equus]  ruentem 
In  Prothoum  lapsasque  manu  quaerentis  habenas 
In  voltus  galeam  clipeumque  in  pectora  calcat. 

For  the  description  of  the  Fury  in  st.  5,  cf.  Thebaid,  i,  90-91,  103-113; 
with  st.  6  cf.  Thebaid,  i,  97-98. 

ix,  9-28.  Arcita  is  picked  up  amid  lamentation  and  receives  medi- 
cal treatment.  He  recovers  his  senses,  and  the  victory  and  Emilia  are 
declared  his. 

ix,  29-50.  Though  suffering  dreadfully,  Arcita  rides  in  a  triumphal 
car.    A  triumph  like  a  Roman  triumph  is  celebrated. 

ix,  51-80.  Theseus  addresses  the  warriors  and  praises  their  valor 
on  both  sides.  All  the  prisoners  taken  are  released  except  Palemone, 
who  is  declared  Emilia's  prisoner.  She  sets  him  free  and  gives  him 
a  ring  and  a  horse  and  arms. 

ix,  81-83.  Arcita  claims  Emilia,  and  their  marriage  takes  place. 
For  sacrifices  at  the  wedding  (83)  cf.  Thebaid,  ii,  244-261. 

Book  X 

The  first  92  stanzas  are  mostly  original.  Those  killed  in  the  tourna- 
ment are  burned  and  their  ashes  inurned;  the  wounded  receive  treat- 
ment (1-10).  Arcita  proves  to  be  mortally  wounded;  Ischion  comes 
from  Epidaurus  to  treat  him,  but  pronounces  the  case  hopeless  (n- 
14).  He  grows  worse  and  worse,  and  bequeaths  all  he  possesses  (in- 
cluding Emilia)  to  Palemone  (15-36).  His  address  to  Palemone  and 
Palemone's  to  him;  Ippolita  and  Emilia  try  to  comfort  him  (37-52). 
Arcita  talks  with  Emilia,  recommending  Arcita  to  her  favor;  her 
grief;  his  lament;  general  sorrow  (53-87).  Nine  days  after  the  tourna- 
ment, Arcita  begs  his  friends  to  prepare  sacrifices  to  Mercury,  so  that 
the  god  may  conduct  his  soul  to  a  pleasant  place.    Palemone  offers 


132  George  Lyman  Kittredge 

the  sacrifices  next  day  (88-92).  Arcita's  prayer,  asserting  the  inno- 
cence of  his  life;  his  lament  for  his  youth:  he  shall  love  Emilia  for- 
ever; his  death  (93-112). 

In  Arcita's  prayer,  with  the  protestations  of  the  innocence  of  his 
life  (93  fi\),  there  is  mention  of  the  sins  of  his  race  which  is  reminiscent 
of  passages  in  the  Thebaid  and  illustrates  Boccaccio's  intimate  know- 
ledge of  that  epic.  Sts.  95-96  deal  with  Cadmus,  Agave,  Semele,  and 
Athamas:  cf.  Thebaid,  hi,  179-194,  and  iv,  553-571,  in  both  of  which 
places  all  four  are  mentioned.  With  the  reference  to  Oedipus  in  st.  96 
cf .  particularly  the  protestations  of  innocence  by  the  mother  of  Menoe- 
ceus  in  Thebaid,  x,  796-797;  cf.  also  i,  233-235: 

Ne  amante 
Delia  mia  madre  fui,  la  nazione 
Nel  sen  materno  indietro  ritornante 
Siccome  Edippo  (x,  96). 

Non  ego  monstrifero  coitu  revoluta  notavi 

Pignora,  nee  nato  peperi  funesta  nepotes  (x,  796-797). 

Scandere  quin  etiam  thalamos  hie  impius  heres 
Patris  et  immeritae  gremium  incestare  parentis 
Appetiit,  proprios  monstro  revolutus  in  ortus  (i,  233-235). 

For  other  lists  of  Theban  crimes  and  tragedies  see  Thebaid,  i,  1-16, 
227-241;  xi,  486-492  (cf.  i,  673  tL). 

Stanzas  no  and  112,  as  well  as  the  fifth  and  sixth  stanzas  of  book 
xi,  show  the  influence  of  the  finest  passage  in  the  Thebaid  —  one  of 
the  most  beautiful,  indeed,  in  the  whole  range  of  epic  poetry  —  that 
in  which  the  dying  Atys  calls  for  Ismene  his  betrothed  (viii,  637-655). 
Cf.  particularly  Teseide  x,  no,  with  648-650;  x,  112,  with  643-645; 
xi,  5-6,  with  653-655. 

Book  XI 

This  book  shows  throughout  an  imitation,  often  very  close,  of  the 
funeral  of  Archemorus  (Opheltes)  in  the  Sixth  Book  of  the  Thebaid. 

xi,  1-12.  General  grief  for  Arcita,  especial  sorrow  of  Emilia  and 
Palemone.  With  sts.  5-6  we  have  already  compared  Thebaid,  viii, 
653-655.    Sts.  11-12  are  influenced  by  vi,  45-53. 

xi,  13-29.  Preparation  of  Arcita's  pyre.  Note  the  following  paral- 
lels: B  14,  S,  vi,  84-86;    B  15,  S  54-56,  61-62;   B  16,  S  25-30,  124- 


Chaucer's  Lollius  133 

125;   B  18-25,  S  84-113  (the  pyre  of  Opheltes  is  mentioned  in  B  18); 
B  26-29,  S  54-66,  84-86. 

xi,  30-58  (cf.  Thebaid,  vi,  28-237).  Arcita's  funeral.  His  ashes 
are  put  into  an  urn.  Cf.  B  30  with  S  28-32;  B  31  with  S  33-36;  B  32 
with  S  37-43;  B  33-34  with  S  45-53;  B  35-36  with  S  67-81,  193-194; 
B  37  with  S  126-128,  210-212;  B  38  with  S  128-130,  197-198;  B  39- 
40  with  S  130-133;  B  41  with  S  135-141;  B  42  with  S  197-201;  B  43 
with  S  122-124;  B  44  with  S  202,  184-185;  B  46  with  S  184-185; 
B  47-50  with  S  194-203,  206-210;  B  51  with  S  211-212,  204-205, 
iS0-^;  B  52~56  witn  s  213-226;  B  57  with  S  234-237. 

xi,  59-68.  The  funeral  games  (S,  249-946).  Cf.  B  59  with  S  vi, 
295-296;  B  60-61  with  S  531-549;  B  62  with  S  833,  834,  847;  B  64 
with  S  729-734;  B  66  with  S  646-647. 

xi,  69-89.  A  temple  is  built  by  Palemone  where  the  pyre  stood. 
Description  of  the  temple.  The  history  of  Arcita's  life  is  represented 
therein.  The  suggestion  for  these  stanzas  is  in  Thebaid,  vi,  242-248 
(cf.  268-294). 

xi,  90-91.  Arcita's  urn  is  placed  on  a  column  in  the  temple,  with 
an  inscription. 

Book  XII 

xii,  1-19.  Continued  grief  of  Palemone  and  Emilia.  Theseus  and 
the  Greeks  think  it  is  time  for  the  mourning  to  cease.  Theseus  wishes 
Palemone  to  marry  Emilia.  With  B  st.  6,  cf.  Thebaid,  vi,  46-48.  For 
Foroneo  (st.  18)  see  Thebaid,  ii,  219. 

xii,  20-46.  Palemone  and  Emilia  have  scruples  about  marriage, 
but  Theseus  overrules  their  objections. 

xii,  47-80.  Preparations  for  the  wedding.  Arcita  is  forgotten. 
Description  of  Emilia  (53-64).  The  marriage  ceremony  and  festivi- 
ties.   With  st.  68  cf.  Thebaid,  ii,  244-261. 

xii,  81-86.  Two  months  have  elapsed  since  the  "  high  barons  " 
came  to  Athens  for  the  joust.  They  return  to  their  several  countries. 
Palemone  lives  in  joy  with  his  wife.  Conclusion  —  The  author's 
address  to  his  book.    With  B,  sts.  84-86,  cf.  S,  xii,  810-819. 

The  poem  closes  with  a  sonnet  addressed  by  the  author  to  the  Muses 
"  per  lo  libro  suo  "  (he  beseeches  them  to  give  it  to  his  lady)  and  with 
the  reply  of  the  Muses  ("  Your  lady  has  named  the  book  Teseide  "). 
Cf.  S,  xii,  810-819. 


#    -  /  -I 


ENGLISH    WITCHCRAFT 
AND   JAMES    THE    FIRST 

By  GEORGE   LYMAN   KITTREDGE 


iFrom  §>tuoie:6  in  ttjc  Iptatorg  of  -Keligions 
presenteD  to  Cratoforo  «?otoell  ®o? 
JIBS  pupils  Colleagues  ant)  ifrieno* 


THE     MACMILLAN     COMPANY 
NEW  YORK  MDCCCCXII 

till. 


ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES 
THE  FIRST 

Geohge  Lyman  Kittebdge 

» 

Harvard  University 

T"  Common  fame  makes  James  I.  a  sinister  figure  in  the  his- 
tory of  English  witchcraft.  The  delusion,  we  are  told,  was 
dying  out  in  the  later  years  of  Elizabeth,  but  James  fanned 
the  embers  into  a  devouring  flame.  His  coming  was  the 
signal  for  a  violent  and  long-continued  outburst  of  witch- 

\  hunting,  for  which  he  was  personally  responsible.  He  pro- 
cured the  repeal  of  the  comparatively  mild  Elizabethan  law 
and  the  enactment  of  a  very  cruel  statute.  He  encouraged 
and  patronized  witchfinders,  and  was  always  eager  for  fresh 
victims.  His  reign  is  a  dark  and  bloody  period  in  the  annals 
of  this  frightful  superstition. 

*  Many  authorities  might  be  adduced  in  support  of  these 
views,  but  I  must  rest  content  with  quoting  three  writers 
who  have  had  some  influence  in  propagating  them,  —  Mrs. 
Lynn  Linton,  Mr.  Robert  Steele,  and  Mr.  G.  M.  Trevelyan.1 
In  1861  Mrs.  E.  Lynn  Linton  published  a  volume  of  Witch 
Stories,  which  was  reissued  in  1883  and  has  met  with  de- 
served favor.  Mrs.  Linton  has  no  mercy  on  James  I.  His 
"name  stands  accursed  for  vice  and  cruel  cowardice  and  the 

1  For  other  pronouncements  of  a  more  or  less  similar  nature,  see  Sir  Walter  Scott, 
Introduction  to  Potts's  Discoverie,  Somers  Tracts,  2d  edition,  1810,  3.  95 ;  Mrs. 
Lucy  Aitkin,  Memoirs  of  the  Court  of  King  James  the  First,  1822,  2.  166-167 ; 
Retrospective  Review,  1822,  6.  90 ;  Scott,  Letters  on  Demonology  and  Witchcraft, 
1830,  pp.  227,  246-247 ;  Crossley,  Introduction  to  Potts,  Chetham  Society,  1845, 
pp.  xix.,  xiv. ;  Thomas  Wright,  Narratives  of  Sorcery  and  Magic,  1851,  1.  284, 
2.  143-144 ;  Charles  Hardwick,  History  of  Preston,  1857,  p.  146 ;  P.  Q.  Karkeek, 
Transactions  of  the  Devonshire  Association,  1874,  6.  786 ;  F.  A.  Inderwick,  Side- 
Lights  on  the  Stuarts,  2d  ed.,  1891,  pp.  154-155 ;  Horley,  History  of  Sefton,  1893, 
p.  115,  note  1;  H.  N.  Doughty,  Blackwood's  Magazine,  March,  1898,  163,  388; 
W.  R.  Roper,  Materials  for  the  History  of  Lancaster,  Part  i,  Chetham  Society,  1907, 
pp.  26-27. 

1 


2  ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

utmost  selfishness  of  fear."  2  "Treacherous,  cruel,  narrow- 
minded,  and  cowardly,"  she  calls  him,  "beyond  anything 
that  has  ever  disgraced  the  English  throne  before  or  since."  3 
He  had  a  "mania  against  witches,"  4  a  "lust  for  witch 
blood."  5  "There  was  no  holding  in  of  this  furious  madness 
after  James  I.  had  got  his  foot  in  the  stirrup,  and  was  riding 
a  race  neck  and  neck  with  the  Devil."  6  These  are  hard 
words ;  yet  Mrs  Linton  knows  that  the  beliefs  which  she  has 
in  mind  were  "rampant  in  England  when  good  Queen  Bess 
ruled  the  land,"  7  and  her  own  book  contains  facts  enough 
to  give  us  pause. 

Let  us  take  a  leap  of  thirty-odd  years  and  read  what  Mr. 
Robert  Steele  has  to  tell  us  in  his  article  on  witchcraft  in 
the  fourth  volume  of  a  well-reputed  work  of  collaboration, 
Social  England,  edited  by  Mr.  H.  D.  Traill : 

\With  the  accession  of  James  a  change  came  over  the  feelings  of  those 
in  power.  During  the  later  years  of  Elizabeth  tract  after  tract  appeared, 
calling  for  severe  punishment  upon  witches,  but  with  no  result :  the  Eng- 
lish trials,  up  to  now,  had  been  characterised  rather  by  folly  than  ferocity, 
the  new  rule  was  marked  by  ferocious  folly.  For  forty  years  Scotland  had 
been  engaged  in  witch-hunting,  with  the  result  that  8000  human  beings 
are  believed  to  have  been  burnt  between  1560  and  1600 ;  and  for  the  last 
ten  years  of  the  century  the  king  had  been  at  the  head  of  the  hunt.  .  .  . 
In  the  first  Parliament  of  James  the  more  merciful  Act  of  Elizabeth  was 
repealed ;  a  new  and  exhaustive  one  was  enacted.  .  .  .  Under  this  Act 
70,000  persons  were  executed  up  to  1680.8  , 

I  stand  aghast  at  these  figures.  There  is  no  sense  or 
reason  in  them.  No  records  have  been  published  or  exam- 
ined which  would  justify  the  assertion  that  a  seventieth  part 
of  this  monstrous  number  met  their  death  in  the  period 
named.  As  for  the  time  from  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1604 
till  the  death  of  James  in  1625,  Mr.  Steele  would  find  it  hard 
to  make  out  an  average  of  more  than  two  or  three  executions  a 
year.  I  half  suspect  that  he  has  got  hold  of  some  statistics 
of  mortality  from  the  plague. . 

Mr.  Trevelyan  is  vaguer,  but  no  less  emphatic:  "The 
skeptical  Elizabeth,  perhaps  with  some  pity  for  her  sex,  had 
refused  to  yield  when  the  pamphlet  press  called  on  the  Gov- 

a  Ed.  1861,  p.  20.  3pp.25&_260,  « P.  259.  6  P.  261.  6P.  195. 

7  P.  195.  »  4.  85-86. 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  3 

eminent  to  enact  fiercer  laws  'not  suffering  a  witch  to  live.' 
The  outburst  came  with  the  accession  of  a  Scottish  King, 
who,  though  he  rejected  the  best  part  of  the  spirit  of  Knox, 
was  crazed  beyond  his  English  subjects  with  the  witch- 
mania  of  Scotland  and  the  continent.  lwHis  first  Parliament 
enacted  new  death-laws ;  at  once  the  Judges  and  magistrates, 
the  constables  and  the  mob,  began  to  hunt  up  the  oldest  and 
ugliest  spinster  who  lived  with  her  geese  in  the  hut  on  the 
common,  or  tottered  about  the  village  street  mumbling  the 
inaudible  soliloquies  of  second  childhood."  9  In  this  witch- 
hunt, Mr.  Trevelyan  tells  us,  "learning^  headed  by  the  pedant 
King,  was  master  of  the  hounds."  10y 

So  much  for  the  current  opinion.'11     Let  us  try  to  dis-\ 
cover  to  what  extent  it  is  justified  by  the  facts.     And  first 
we  must  consider  two  things  that  have  created  an  enormous 
prejudice  against  King  James,  —  his  Scottish  record  and  his 
authorship  of  the  Dsemonologie.  £&v 

•The  history  of  witchcraft  in  Scotland  is  a  difficult  subject,  f* 
and  it  is  particularly  hard  to  determine  just  what  degree  of 
responsibility  attaches  to  King  James.  To  sift  the  matter 
thoroughly  would  require  much  time  and  space.  Still,  a 
few  facts  are  patent.  (1)  James  did  not  make  the  Scottish 
law  of  witchcrafts  The  statute  was  enacted  in  1563,  before 
he  was  born,  (2)  He  didjiotjteach  the  Scottish  nation  the 
witch  creed.  That  creed  was  the  heritage  of  the  human 
race,  a^jwa^niiwJiereJLes^-questioned  by_all  classes,  and  all 
professions  than  in  Soot]  aruj^  where,  indeed,  it  survived  in  l/,0l 
full  vigor  for  more  than  a  century  after  James  was  dead. 
(3)  The  worst  perioxLol  Scottish  prosecutiojijloes  not  fall  in 
his  reign.  Thejthree  great  jxrosecutions  were  in  1590-15QIL 
jn  JLgiQn1^^  *nH  i"  lfifif>-lfifi\  The  second  was  worse 
than  the  first,  and  the  third  (which  began  with  the  Restora- 
tion) was  the  worst  o|  all.  (4)James_  did  noiL initiatejthe 
prosecutions  of  1590.12\ 

9  England  under  the  Stuarts  [1904],  p.  32.  10  P.  33. 

11  A  brief  but  powerful  vindication  of  King  James  was  inserted  by  William 
Gifford  in  his  edition  of  Ford  (1.  clxxi.,  Dyce's  revision,  1869,  3.  276 ;  cf.  Quar- 
terly Review,  41.  80-82),  but  it  has  attracted  little  attention.  See  also  Disraeli's 
Character  of  James  the  First  (Miscellanies  of  Literature,  N.Y.,  1841,  3.  355-360). 

n  See  particularly  Mr.  F.  Legge's  paper  on  Witchcraft  in  Scotland,  in  The  Scottish 
Review  for  October,  1891  (18.  257-288). 


4  ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

\  Upon  this  last  point  we  must  dwell  for  a  moment.  In 
1583,  when  James  was  a  boy  of  seventeen,  the  Scottish  clergy 
called  for  a  sharper  enforcement  of  the  law.  In  1590  began 
the  trials  of  John  Fian  and  his  associates,  with  which  the 
name  of  the  king  is  indissolubly  connected.  It  seems  quite 
clear  that  these  trials  were  not  James's  own  idea.  His  in- 
tellectual curiosity  —  well  known  to  be  one  of  his  most 
salient  characteristics  —  led  him  to  attend  the  examinations. 
But  he  was  not  naturally  credulous  in  such  matters  (as  we 
shall  see  later),  he  found  the  confessions  beyond  belief^and 
hej^jaoiincedJiLe-witc^  When,  how- 

ever, Agnes  Sampson,  to  convince  him,  repeated  in  his  pri- 
vate ear  a  conversation  that  he  had  held  with  the  queen  on 
the  marriage-night,  he  "acknowledged  her  words  to  bee  most 
true,  and  therefore  gaue  the  more  credit  "  to  their  stories.13 
It  makes  little  difference  what  we  think  of  this  feat  of  Agnes 
Sampson's :  the  value  of  the  anecdote  lies  in  the  light  it 
throws  on  the  king's  skepticism.  Agnes  also  implicated  the 
Earl  of  Bothwell  in  a  charge  of  witchcraft  against  the  king's 
life.  James's  dislike  and  fear  of  Bothwell  are  notorious; 
they  appear  in  a  striking  passage  of  the  Basilikon  Doron.14 
He  looked  on  Bothwell  as  his  evil  genius  and  was  ever  ready 
to  listen  to  anything  to  his  discredit.  Chancellor  Maitland, 
who  was  Both  well's  enemy,  had  the  king's  confidence.15 
Numerous  executions  followed,  and  the  great  prosecution  of 
1590-1597  was  now  under  way.  It  had  started,  however, 
not  with  James,  but,  as  usual,  among  obscure  persons.  The 
king  had  simply  become  involved  in  the  affair.  No  doubt  he 
countenanced  the  general  witch-hunt  that  followed;  but 
he  cannot  be  said  to  have  encouraged  it,  for  no  encourage- 
ment was  needed.  The  clergy  were  eager,  and  the  people 
lived  in  constant  terror  of  witches.  If  ever  there  was  a 
spontaneous  popular  panic,  this  was  such  an  outbreak. 
James  and  his  Council  had  only  to  let  the  forces  work.  And, 
indeed,  it  seems  pretty  certain  that  they  had  no  power  to 
stem  the  current.     Mr.  Andrew  Lang,  who  censures  the  king, 

13  Newes  from  Scotland,  1591,  sig.  B  2  (Roxburghe  Club  reprint). 
14 1599,  Roxburghe  Club  reprint,  p.  97. 

18  Spottiswoode,  History  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  Bannatyne  Club,  2.  412 ; 
Pitcairn,  Criminal  Trials,  1.  230,  240,  note;  Legge,  Scottish  Review,  18.  262. 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  5 

says  in  plain  terms  that  he  "could  not  have  controlled  the 
preachers."  16  Add  to  this  the  testimony  of  Pitcairn,  a 
hostile  witness,  that  the  period  from  1591  to  1596  was  dis- 
tinguished by  "open  defiance  of  the  King  and  Parliament, 
and  by  the  frequent  and  daring  conspiracies  enterprised 
against  the  Royal  person."  17  Altogether,  it  does  not  ap- 
pear that  James  is  to  blame  for  the  events  of  1590-1597,  or 
that  the  prosecution  proves  him  either  exceptionally  credu- 
lous or  exceptionally  devoted  to  witch-hunting.  If  a  whole 
nation  believes  in  witchcraft,  outbreaks  of  prosecution  (like 
other  outbreaks)  are  likely  to  happen  whenever  there  are 
troublous  times.  This  has  been  seen  over  and  over  again, 
—  in  the  tumult  of  the  English  Civil  War,  for  instance,  and 
just  after  the  Revolution,  and  in  our  own  Salem  at  a  critical 
moment  in  New  England  history.18  James  was  not  riding 
the  storm  like  Odin.  He  was  only  a  mortal  man,  swept  off 
his  feet  by  the  tide. 

Whether  these  considerations  are  just  or  not,  one  thing  is 
certain  —  by  1597  James ,  wjas-jconvincexl  that  matters  had 
K55^  tp^)JPar.  Indictments  were  piling  upon  indictments, 
there  was  no  telling  the  innocent  from  the  guilty,  and  no 
end  was  in  sight.     Comjms^iojris_o^ 

were  being  held. ^throughout  _Scotlaiid,_  and  the  king^_by._a 
stroke„of  the.,  pen,  revoked  them  all.19  It  is  noteworthy 
that  the  proximate  cause  of  his  action  was  the  discovery 
that  many  denunciations  were  fraudulent.  Compare  James's 
incredulity  at  the  outset,  and  the  skill  which  he  showed  later 
in  life  (as  we  shall  see  presently)  in  detecting  similar  impos- 
tures. From  1597  to  James's  accession  to  the  English  throne 
in  1603,  there  were  abundant  witch-trials  in  Scotland,  but 
the  annual  number  of  executions  was  much  smaller,  and 
there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  king  pressed  for  more. 
When  he  succeeded  to  the  English  crown,  the  intensity  of  the 
Scottish  witch-quest  had  ceased,  by  his  own  act,  and  that 
period  was  associated  in  his  mind  with  a  time  of  anarchy. 
England  looked  to  him  like  a  haven  of  rest.     He  was  certainly 

16  History  of  Scotland,  2.  353.  17  Criminal  Trials,  1.  357. 

18  See  Kittredge,  Notes  on  Witchcraft,  1907,  pp.  64-65. 

19  Privy  Council  Register,  5.  409-410;  Spottiswoode,  3.  66-67;  Legge,  p.  264; 
Lang,  History  of  Scotland,  2.  433. 


6  ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

thinking  of  other  matters  than  witches  when  he  came  into 
the  promised  land. 

So  much  for  the  first  of  the  two  things  that  have  led  men  to 
approach  James's  English  witch  record  with  a  prejudiced 
opinion.  Let  us  pass  to  the  second, — his  authorship  of 
the  Dsemonologie. 

The  importance  of  King  James's  Dsemonologie  has  been 
greatly  exaggerated,  both  as  to  its  bearing  on  his  supposed 
career  as  a  prosecutor  and  as  to  its  effect  on  English  senti- 
ment in  his  time.  The  book  is  a  confession  of  faitly  not  an 
autobiography.  It  is  proof  of  what  James  thought,  not  of 
what  he  did.  The  publication  of  the  Daemonologie  did  not 
cause  the  death  of  any  Scottish  witches,  either  directly  or 
indirectly.  Nor  did  it  convert  a  single  Scottish  skeptic, 
for  there  were  none  to  convert.  The  book  did  not  appear 
until  l^T^^t^jy^y^ear^jn  whklL  Iames^_by-a^stroke  of 
the  pen,  checked  the_^reaLjBroseciitiQn  that  had  b££ii-£oing 
since  1590a,  As  to  England,  the  case  against  the  Dsemonol- 
ogie  is  pitifully  weak.  The  treatise,  though  well-constructed 
and  compendious,  is  not  original.  It  adduces  neither  new 
facts  nor  new  arguments.  Mr.  Gardiner  is  perfectly  right 
when  he  says  that  James  "had  only  echoed  opinions  which 
were  accepted  freely  by  the  multitude,  and  were  tacitly 
admitted  without  inquiry  by  the  first  intellects  of  the  day."  20 
Certainly  there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  the  Dsemonologie 
had  any  appreciable  effect  on  English  sentiment. 

I  am  well  aware  that  King  James's  Dsemonologie  was  re- 
issued in  London  in  1603.  But  this  was  a  mere  bookselling 
speculation,21  like  the  Latin  translation  by  Germberg  that 
appeared  at  Hanover  in  1604.22  There  is  no  parade  about 
the  volume,  no  hint  that  it  was  published  at  the  king's  in- 
stance. ^  Contrast  the  circumstances  attending  the  publica- 

20  History  of  England,  1603-1642,  7.  322-323  (1899). 

21  John  Hawarde  (born  about  1571)  makes  a  curious  note  in  his  manuscript, 
Les  Reportes  del  Cases  in  Camera  Stellata  (ed.  Baildon,  pp.  179-180) :  "Nothinge 
now  was  talked  of  but  the  relligion,  vertue,  wisedome,  learninge,  Justice,  &  manye 
other  most  noble  &  woorthye  prayses  of  K.  James,  ...  his  bookes  new  printed, 
(BaziXixo*'  8otii)p,  Freen  monarchies,  Monologie,  Expositions  upon  the  Reuelacions 
&  the  Kings,  the  Lepanto)." 

22  There  are  two  London  editions  of  1603.  See  the  details  in  Ferguson,  Publi- 
cations of  the  Edinburgh  Bibliographical  Society,  3.  51. 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  7 

tion  of  the  Basilikon  Doron  in  the  same  year.  This  had  been 
privately  printed  in  1599.  When  it  came  before  the  public 
in  1603,  there  was  a  long,  defensive  preface,  entirely  new, 
in  which  the  king  exerted  himself  to  stand  well  with  his  Eng- 
lish subjects.23  ^  James,  as  we  have  already  remarked,  had 
other  things  than  witchcraft  to  occupy  his  thoughts  when 
he  mounted  the  English  throne.  If  it  can  be  shown  that  he 
immediately  engaged  in  a  campaign  for  new  witch-laws  or 
for  more  vigorous  prosecution,  then  we  may  regard  the 
Dsemonologie  of  1603  as  a  campaign  document.  But  first 
one  must  show  that  he  did  engage  in  any  such  campaign; 
otherwise  the  question  is  begged.  And,  as  we  shall  soon 
discover,  he  did  nothing  of  the  kind. 

Clearly,  then,  we  must  study  the  witch  law  and  the  witch- 
trials  of  James's  English  reign  on  the  basis,  not  of  prejudice, 
but  of  evidence.  And  first  we  may  consider  the_Sta±u±e 
of  1604^ 

;The  current  ideas  about  the  English  laws  against  witchcraft 
are  very  inaccurate.  For  these  misapprehensiojis,  Thomas 
ffirjghlis-in  large  part  responsible'  His  learned  and  inter- 
esting Narratives  of  Sorcery  and  Magic,  which  has  enjoyed 
a  deserved  popularity  for  more  than  fifty  years,  is  surpris- 
ingly loose  in  its  statements  about  legal  history. 

"The  first  act  in  the  statute-book  ^against,  witchcraft,' ' 
say_s_Wrighty  "was  passedin  the  thirty-third  year  of  Henry 
VIII.^_j^D^_J^ll^_jffhexeh^  made 

feJpn^LjKithjoiitJbenefi  24     So  far  he  is  quite  cor- 

rect, except  for  the  year  of  our  Lord,  which  should  be  1542. 
"In  1547,"  he  adds,  "when the _p_ower ^-_was_jentirely  in  the 
hands  of  the  religious  reformers  under  Edward  _VL,  his 
father's  law  .against  witchcraft. was  repealed.''  This  asser- 
tion, though  technically  indisputable,  is  rather  misleading. 
The  act  to  which  Wright  refers  (1  Edward  VI.,  c.  12)  does 

23  See  the  Roxburghe  Club  reprint  of  the  1599  edition.  On  the  attention  which 
the  Basilikon  Doron  attracted,  see  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Venetian,  1603-1607, 
pp.  10,  65. 

24  Narratives  of  Sorcery  and  Magic,  1851,  1.  279.  See  also  the  authors  cited 
above  (p.  1,  note  1).  The  account  of  the  laws  given  by  Mr.  James  Williams 
in  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica  (9th  ed.,  24.  620-621)  is  above  the  average,  but  not 
free  from  errors.  There  are  serious  mistakes  in  Mr.  Robert  Steele's  summary  in 
Traill's  Social  England,  3.  326. 


8  ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

not  once  mention  sorcery,  magic,  or  witchcraft.  The  third 
section  wipes  out  of  the  statute-book  "all  offences  made 
felony  by  any  act  or  acts  of  Parliament,  statute  or  statutes, 
made  sithence  the  xxiiith  day  of  April  in  the  first  year  of  the 
reign  of  the  said  late  King  Henry  theight,  not  being  felony 
before."     Among  these  offences  was  witchcraft. 

Wright's  next  statement  is  highly  objectionable.  It 
amounts  to  a  serious,  though  inadvertent,  suppressio  veri. 
"  Underjlljaateth/^  be  .1563], 

ajaejL^ctJwas^ias^exLa^ii^  the  first 

conviction LonIy^:with  exposure  in  the  ^pillory /^ 25  Now  the 
truth  is  that  Elizabeth's  law  was  much  severer  than  one 
would  infer  from  these  words.  It  fixes  the  death  penalty 
( l)jfor  all  who  "use,  practise,  or  exercige.jny_Qfiat.ions  or  con- 
jurations j)f  evil  and  wicked  spirits  to  or  for  any  intent  sir 
purpose,"  quite  irrespective  of  the  result  of  such  invocations 
or  conjurations^  and  (2)_f or  -all who-praetise  witchcraft  that 
causes  a  person's  death.  _  Under  the  former  projdsiojxrrrita 
take  a  good  example — Edmund  Hartlay  Jost _  Jbds_Jife__jn 
Lancashire  in  1597.  He  was  a  professed  conjurer,  and  had 
been  employed  to  relieve  the  children  of  Mr.  Nicholas  Starkie, 
who  were  thought  to  be  possessed  with  devils.  Hartlay 
caught  the  hysterical  affection  himself  and  was  tormented 
in  like  manner.  "The  next  day,  beinge  recouered,  he  went 
into  a  little  wood,  not  f arr  from  the  house,  where  he  maide  a 
circle  about  a  yarde  and  halfe  wyde,  deuiding  it  into  4.  partes, 
making  a  crosse  at  every  diuisfon :  and  when  he  had  finished 
his  worke,  he  came  to  M.  StUrchie  and  desiered  him  to  go  and 
tread  out  the  circle,  saying,  I  may  not  treade  it  out  my  selfe, 
and  further,  I  will  meete  with  them  that  went  about  my 
death,"  26  —  that  is,  in  effect,  I  wish  to  raise  the  devils  that 
tried  to  kill  me  yesterday.  There  were  other  charges  against 
Hartlay,  but  none  of  a  capital  nature.  "The  making  of  his 
circle  was  chefly  his  ouerthrowe."  27  He  denied  the  fact,  but, 
the  rope  breaking,  confessed  it  before  he  died.28 

25  Narratives,  1.  279. 

26  John  Darrel,  A  True  Narration,  etc.,  1600,  p.  1. 

27  Darrel,  p.  7. 

28  Another  case  occurred  in  1580.  William  Randoll  was  hanged  for  conjuring 
to  discover  hidden  treasure  and  stolen  goods.  Four  others  were  tried  for  aiding 
and  abetting,  and  three  of  them  were  sentenced  to  death,  but  reprieved.    The  trial 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  9 

Furthermore,  the  Elizabethan  statute  provided  that 
''witchcraft,  enchantment,  charm,  or  sorcery"  which  caused 
Dodily  injury  to  human  beings  or  damage  to  goods  or  chattels 
should  be  punished  with  a  year's  imprisonment  (with  quar- 
terly exposure  in  the  pillory)  for  the  first  offence,  and  with 
death  for  the  second  offence.  And  finally,  the  statute  provided 
imprisonment  and  the  pillory,  with  life  imprisonment  for  the 
second  offence,  for  all  who  should  "take  upon"  themselves 
to  reveal  the  whereabouts  of  hidden  treasure  or  of  lost  or 
stolen  goods,  or  should  practise  witchcraft  with  intent  to 
provoke  unlawful  love  or  to  "hurt  or  destroy  any  person  in 
his  or  her  body,  member,  or  goods."  It  must  now  be  mani- 
fest how  unduly  Wright  extenuates  the  grimness  of  Eliza- 
beth's law.\ 

yThus  we  reach_the  reign  of  James  J^-  In  his  secornLyear 
wasjmssed  the  statntejollfiM.  which  remained  in  force  until^ 
VTQGu  The  relation  of  this  act  to  the  statute  of  Elizabeth, 
which  it  repealed,  becomes  a  matter  of  great  importance  to 
determine.  Here  Wright  leaves  us  in  the  lurch.  James, 
he  tells  us,  "passed  a  new  and  severe  law  against  witchcraft,29 
in  which  it  now  became  almost  a  crime  to  disbelieve."  30  We 
are  led  to  infer  that,  whereas  Elizabeth's  law  was  mild  and 
hardly  objectionable,  James's  statute  was  both  novel  and 
severe.  The  facts  are  quite  different.  Janies!s  ^statute 
follows  Elizabeth's  in  the  main,  even  in  phraseology.  (DJThe. 
new  statute  (like .  the_  old)  provides_<ieath  r&  ±h_e--penalty  f or 
jwowtion  or  conjuratioji^LemL^)irits  for  any  purpose  rtuj 
withciiit_regard -to~  the  issue..  But  it  inserts  two  clauses 
making  it  also  felony  to  "consult,  covenant  with,  entertain,, 
employ,  feed,  or  reward  "  any  such  spirit  for  any  purpose, 

was  held  at  the  King's  Bench  (Holinshed,  4.  433).  An  excessively  curious  case  is 
that  of  a  woman  tried  by  the  mayor  of  Faversham,  Kent,  in  1586.  The  court  and 
jury  were  convinced  that  she  was  not  guilty  of  witchcraft.  In  order  to  clear  her  of 
the  capital  charge,  a  verdict  of  guilty  of  invocation  and  conjuration  was  brought  in. 
The  mayor  was  about  to  congratulate  the  defendant  on  escaping  with  her  life,  when 
the  legal  adviser  of  the  corporation  informed  him  that  invocation  and  conjuration 
amounted  to  felony,  and  she  was  hanged  accordingly.  Full  details  are  given  by 
John  Waller  in  Holinshed,  4.  891-893. 

29  1.  284. 

30  As  to  this  latter  dictum,  it  is  instructive  to  observe  that  in  1578  one  Dr.  Browne 
was  in  trouble  because  he  "spread  misliking  of  the  laws,  by  saying  there  are  no 
witches"  (Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  Addenda,  1566-1579,  p.  551). 


10        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

or  to  dig  up  any  dead  body,  or  part  thereof,  for  use  in  sor- 
cery. (2)  For  witchcraft  that  kills,  death  is  the  penalty  (as  in 
the  Elizabethan  enactment).  (3)  For  witchcraft  that  causei 
bodily  harm,  but  does  not  kill,  the  new  law  imposes  death 
for  the  first  (instead  of  the  second)  offence.  (4)  For  the 
minor  varieties  of  sorcery  and  witchcraft,  death  is  substituted 
for  life  imprisonment  as  the  penalty  for  the  second  offence.31 
Clearly  the  statute  of  1604  is  not  so  great  a  novelty  as  we 
have  been  led  to  think.  It  is,  to  be  sure,  more  severe  than 
the  Elizabethan  enactment,  but  only  in  some  respects.  Let 
us  study  the  two  a  little  further) 

""The  substitution  of  death  for  life  imprisonment  as  the  pen- 
alty for  the  second  offence  in  certain  minor  grades  of  sorcery 
can  hardly  be  called  an  increase  in  severity.  The  appalling 
state  of  the  prisons  is  notorious.  There  was  a  dreadful  out- 
break of  jail  fever  at  the  Oxford  assizes  in  1579,32  and  another 
at  the  Exeter  assizes  in  1586.33  Prisoners  often  died  while 
awaiting  trial  or  execution.  In  1608  the  Earl  of  Northamp- 
ton, as  Warden  of  the  Cinque  Ports,  induced  the  mayor  of 
Rye  to  admit  to  bail  a  woman  condemned  to  death  for  aiding 
and  abetting  a  witch.  Her  execution  had  been  stayed,  and 
it  was  feared  that  she  would  succumb  to  the  "lothsomness  of 
the  prison."  34  Under  such  conditions,  the  change  from  a 
life-sentence  to  hanging  was  rather  mercy  than  rigor. 

The  penalty  for  digging  up  the  dead  (unknown  to  the 
Elizabethan  law)  was  not  excessive,  in  view  of  the  general 
severity  of  the  penal  code.  The  thing  was  certainly  done 
now  and  then.  It  was  a  real  —  not  an  imaginary  —  crime, 
and  deserved  punishment.  However,  no  case  has  ever  been 
cited  in  which  a  man  or  woman  was  put  to  death  for  this 

31  There  is  some  difference  between  the  two  statutes  in  defining  the  minor  varieties, 
but  it  is  slight  and  not  in  the  direction  of  severity. 

32  See  the  extraordinary  passage  in  Webster's  Displaying  of  Supposed  Witch- 
craft, 1677,  pp.  245-246. 

33  Walsingham  to  Leicester  (Leycester  Correspondence,  Camden  Society,  p. 
24) ;  Hooker  (alias  Vowell),  in  Holinshed,  4.  868 ;  Thomas  Cogan,  The  Haven  of 
Heath,  1589,  pp.  272  ff.  See  also  an  important  paper  on  the  Black  Assizes  in  the 
West,  by  F.  Wilcocks,  M.D.,  in  Transactions  of  the  Devonshire  Association,  16. 
595  ff.  For  Vowell,  see  Charles  Worthy,  in  the  same  Transactions,  14.  631  ff.  (cf. 
11.  442  ff.). 

34 13th  Report  of  the  Commission  on  Historical  MSS.,  Appendix,  Part  iv.,  pp. 
139-140. 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  11 

offence  alone,  and  we  may  therefore  disregard  that  clause  as 
of  no  practical  effect. 

As  for  the  new  provision  about  consulting  or  covenanting 
with  evil  spirits,  or  feeding  them,  it  was  capable  of  operating 
with  great  severity.  In  fact,  however,  I  do  not  believe  that 
a  single  case  can  be  found  during  James's  reign  in  which 
anybody  suffered  death  under  this  clause  who  was  not  other- 
wise liable  to  the  extreme  penalty.35 O  oc^  &**&  **e*+**SSc* 

There  remains,  then,  one  change  in  the  law,  and  only  one, 
—  death  for  the  first  (instead  of  the  second)  offence  in  witch- 
craft that  injures  the  body  without  killing,  —  to  justify  the 
common  opinion  that  James's  statute  of  1604  was  so  stern 
an  enactment  as  to  make  an  era  in  English  witch-prosecu- 
tion.^' 

At  the  outset,  candor  impels  us  to  inquire  whether  James's 
statute  was  really  severe  at  all.  Our  Judgment  must__be 
based,  not-on -our  jpresent  penal  code^  but  on  .that,  of .  the _six-_ 
teenth_anQL-S£venteen.th__  centuries .  When  death  was  the 
penalty  for  stealing  a  sheep,  or  breaking  into  a  house,  or  tak- 
ing a  purse  on  the  highway,  or  stealing  thirteenpence,  was 
it  harsh  to  hang  a  witch  for  driving  her  neighbor  mad  or 
smiting  him  with  epilepsy  or  paralysis  ?  36  To  object  that 
witches  could  not  do  such  things  is  no  answer.  This  objec- 
tion might  hold  against  the  passing  of  any  law  whatever,  but 
has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  of  severity.  It  is  quite 
as  silly  to  fine  or  imprison  a  man  for  an  impossible  crime  as 
to  hang  him  for  it.  However,  we  may  waive  this  point,  for 
we  are  more  directly  concerned  with  the  question  whether 
James's  law  was  so  much  severer  than  Elizabeth's  as  to  make 
its  passage  a  momentous  event.  This  is  to  be  tested,  of 
course,  by  observing  how  the  two  laws  worked,  not  by  weigh- 
ing their  words.' 

To  get  the  perspective,  let  us  look  at  one  of  the  most  no- 

36  A  possible  exception  is  Susan  Swapper,  of  Rye.  She  was  condemned  in  1607, 
but  I  cannot  find  that  she  was  ever  executed.  The  case  is  exceedingly  curious  (see 
Commission  on  Historical  MSS.,  13th  Report,  Appendix,  Part  iv.,  pp.  136-137, 
139-140,  144,  147-148).  For  what  happened  after  1643,  when  James  had  been  in 
his  grave  a  score  of  years,  it  is  absurdly  cruel  to  hold  him  accountable. 

36  Cf .  the  observations  of  Mr.  J.  W.  Brodie-Innes  in  his  interesting  brochure 
on  Scottish  Witchcraft  Trials,  pp.  21-24.  (Privately  Printed  Opuscula  issued  to 
Members  of  the  Sette  of  Odd  Volumes,  No.  25,  1891.) 


12        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

torious  of  Elizabethan  cases,  that  of  St.  Osyth  in  Essex. 
One  Ursula  (or  Ursley)  Kempe,  alias  Grey,  was  a  woman 
of  ill  repute,  who  lived,  with  Thomas  Rabbet,  her  bastard 
son,  in  the  little  village  of  St.  Osith's  (now  St.  Osyth),  near 
Colchester.  She  had  long  lain  under  suspicion  of  witchcraft. 
There  was  sickness  in  the  family  of  a  neighbor,  Grace  Thur- 
lowe,  and  Grace  fancied  that  Ursula  was  to  blame.  The 
local  magistrate,  Brian  Darcey,  lent  a  ready  ear  to  her  com- 
plaint. Witnesses  came  forward  in  abundance,  and  one 
revelation  led  to  another,  as  usual.  Thomas  Rabbet  gave 
evidence  against  his  mother.  Ursula  confessed  her  crimes, 
with  many  tears.  A  whole  nest  of  offenders  was  uncovered, 
and,  in  conclusion,  no  less  than  thirteen  witches  Were  con- 
victed. This  was  in  1582.37  The  affair  made  a  great  noise, 
and  appears  to  have  been  the  chief  immediate  impulse  to 
Reginald  Scot's  famous  book,  The  Discovery  of  Witchcraft. 

Of  the  thirteen  persons  convicted  on  this  occasion,  all  but 
three  were  found  guilty  of  "bewitching  to  death,"  and  con- 
sequently suffered  the  extreme  penalty  under  the  statute  of 
Elizabeth.  James's  statute  would  have  hanged  the  other 
three  as  well.  To  this  extent,  and  to  this  extent  alone,  would 
it  have  operated  more  severely  than  its  predecessor. 

J^he^SrL  Osyth  tragedy  took  place  about  jtwenty  years 
bejpj^jiame&X^ suc^eededk)  the .EflgIiah_CTOwn.  Will  it  be 
believed,  in  the  face  of  the  vehement  denunciation  to  which 
this  king  is  traditionally  subjected  as  a  besotted  persecutor, 
thatjiojM?S-Comparable  to  it  occurred  in  his  reignjmtil  1612, 
when  hejiad  beea_Qn  the  throne  for  nine  years?  Yet  such 
is  the  indisputable  fact. 

An  analysis  of  these  Lancashire  trials  of  1612,  on  the  basis 
of  Thomas  Potts's  official  narrative,  yields  the  following 
results.  Nineteen  persons  were  tried,  of  whom  eight  were 
acquitted.  Of  the  eleven  convicted,  one  (whose  offence  was 
the  killing  of  a  mare)  was  sentenced  to  the  pillory.  This 
leaves  ten  who  were  hanged.38     Six  of  these  were  indicted 

37  Linton,  Witch  Stories,  1861,  pp.  205-221  (from  the  original  narrative  by  W.W., 
—  A  True  and  lust  Recorde,  etc.,  1582). 

3i  The  Wonderfull  Discoverie  of  Witches  in  the  Countie  of  Lancaster.  .  .  .  To- 
gether with  the  Arraignement  and  Triall  of  Iennet  Preston,  at  .  .  .  Yorke,  Lon- 
don, 1613.  Cf.  Farington  Papers,  Chetham  Society,  1856,  p.  27.  One  other 
died  before  trial. 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  13 

for  murder  by  witchcraft,  and  therefore  would  have  suffered 
death  under  Elizabeth's  law  as  surely  as  under  James's. 
Four,  then,  were  executed  who  might  have  got  off  with  im- 
prisonment if  the  older  statute  had  remained  in  force.  But 
it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  all  of  the  four  would  actually 
have  escaped  the  gallows.  For  there  was  evidence  of  mur- 
der by  witchcraft  against  two  of  them,  and  they  might  have 
been  tried  on  that  charge  if  the  lesser  accusation  of  driving  a 
woman  insane  had  not  sufficed  to  send  them  out  of  the  world. 
There  remain  but  two,  therefore,  of  the  eleven  convicted,  who, 
so  far  as  we  can  see,  would  have  been  in  no  danger  of  death 
under  Elizabethan  conditions.  And  one  of  these  exemptions 
may  be  balanced  by  the  case  of  the  woman  sent  to  the  pil- 
lory for  killing  a  mare,  inasmuch  as  there  was  testimony  that 
she  too  had  confessed  to  a  couple  of  murders,  so  that  the 
prosecutors  might  have  found  an  excuse  for  hanging  her,  even 
under  Elizabeth's  statute,  if  they  had  so  desired.  In  the 
same  year,  Jennet  Preston  was  hanged  at  York.  She  was 
convicted  of  murder  by  witchcraft,  and  would  have  suffered 
death  by  Elizabeth's  law.  Likewise  in  1612,  there  was  an 
outbreak  of  prosecution  in  Northamptonshire,  which  ended 
in  the  execution  of  five  persons.  Every  one  of  these,  how- 
ever, had  been  found  guilty  of  murder  by  witchcraft.39 
Hence  their  fate  under  the  statute  of  James  was  precisely 
what  it  would  have  been  if  Elizabeth's  statute  of  1563  had 
never  been  supplanted. 

Two  facts  of  immense  significance  are  now  clear :  first, 
that  Jame^'s_accessionLjwas  not_the_  signal  for  an  outbreak 
of  witciLprosecution^for  he  had  been  on  the  throneJ[on  nine 
years  before  any  such  outbreak  occurred ;  second,__that _the 
statutfijof  1604  was  not  appreciably  more^severe,  in  it^prac- 
ticaJjj^rkin^in^^ 
haye_  been  at  the  same  time  if  it  had_continuecL  in  force.! 

^Before  leaving  the  events  of  1612,  however,  we  must  in- 
quire whether  James  had  any  hand  in  the  prosecutions.  The 
answer  is  unequivocal.  There  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence 
that  he  either  suggested  or  encouraged  the  trials,  or,  indeed, 
that  he  ever  heard  of  the  cases  until  the  defendants  had  been 

19  The  Witches  of  Northamptonshire,  1612  (reprint,  1867). 


14        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

hanged.  A  contrary  view  is  sometimes  expressed  with 
regard  to  the  Lancaster  trials,40  but  there  is  no  foundation 
for  it.  The  source  of  the  error  is  nothing  more  or  less  than 
William  Harrison  Ainsworth's  romance  entitled  The  Lan- 
cashire Witches.  This  was  published  in  1849,  and  appears 
to  have  proved  more  entertaining  to  some  historians  than 
the  study  of  authentic  documents^ 

One  of  Ainsworth's  most  amusing  characters  is  Master 
Thomas  Potts,  a  London  lawyer.  Potts  happens  to  be  in 
Lancashire  on  legal  business,  and,  on  coming  into  contact 
with  the  rumors  and  petty  intrigues  of  the  neighborhood, 
grasps  the  chance  to  ingratiate  himself  with  King  James  by 
gathering  evidence  and  fomenting  prosecution.  "So  there 
are  suspected  witches  in  Pendle  Forest,  I  find,"  says  Master 
Potts;  "I  shall  make  it  my  business  to  institute  inquiries 
concerning  them,  when  I  visit  the  place  to-morrow.  Even 
if  merely  ill-reputed,  they  must  be  examined,  and  if  found  in- 
nocent cleared;  if  not,  punished  according  to  the  statute. 
Our  soverign  lord  the  king  holdeth  witches  in  especial  ab- 
horrence, and  would  gladly  see  all  such  noxious  vermin 
extirpated  from  the  land,  and  it  will  rejoice  me  to  promote 
his  laudable  designs.  .  .  .  He  is  never  so  pleased  as  when 
the  truth  of  his  tenets  are  proved  by  such  secret  offenders 
being  brought  to  light,  and  duly  punished."  41  And  again  : — 
"If  I  can  unearth  a  pack  of  witches,  I  shall  gain  much  credit 
from  my  honourable  good  lords  the  judges  of  assize  .  .  .  , 
besides  pleasing  the  King  himself,  who  is  sure  to  hear  of  it, 
and  reward  my  praiseworthy  zeal."  42 

Ainsworth  is  quite  within  his  rights  as  a  novelist,  but  we 
should  not  read  him  as  if  he  were  an  historian.  Potts  had 
nothing  to  do  with  getting  up  the  evidence  or  fomenting  the 
prosecution.  He  was  a  London  lawyer,  or  law-writer,  who 
acted  as  clerk  at  the  Lancaster  assizes.  Probably  he  was 
accompanying  the  justices  on  their  circuit.  At  the  instance 
of  these  justices,  as  we  know,  he  prepared  an  official  narrative, 
which  was  published  in  1613  after  revision  by  one  of  them  (Sir 
Edward  Bromley).     The  king  is  mentioned  only  once  in  this 

40  See,  for  example,  Horley,  Sefton,  1893,  p.  115,  note  1;   Roper,  Materials  for 
the  History  of  Lancaster,  Part  i.,  Chetham  Society,  1907,  pp.  26-27. 
41 1.  199-200.  «  1.  207  (cf.  1.  244,  247). 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  15 

tract  (except,  of  course,  in  legal  formulas),  and  that  in  passing : 
.  *  *  \yhat  hath  thcj^ngs^^iestje  written  and  publishedin  his 
Damwnologie.  by  way  of  premonition  and  preuention^jgghich 
hath  not  herejrythe  first  or  last  beene  executed,  put  in  prac- 
tise or  discouered."  43  If  James  had  known  anything  about 
the  case,  Potts  would  surely  have  brought  him  in. 

But  we  are  not  done  with  Ainsworth's  contributions  to 
history.  In  the  third  volume  of  the  romance  he  introduces 
King  James  in  person,  talking  broad  Scots,  profoundly  im- 
pressed by  the  evidence,  causing  the  witches  to  be  brought 
into  his  presence,  and  urging  on  the  prosecution.  These 
scenes  occur  while  he  is  the  guest  of  Sir  Richard  Hoghton  at 
Hoghton  Tower.44  All  this  is  very  good  fiction  indeed.  But 
it  should  not  pass  as  history.  The  Pendle  witches  were 
hanged  in  August,  1612.  James  made  a  progress  that  sum- 
mer, but  not  in  Lancashire.  His  visit  to  Hoghton  Tower 
was  five  years  later,  in  August,  1617.45 

Ainsworth  wrote  The  Lancashire  Witches  at  the  suggestion 
of  Mr.  James  Crossley,  to  whom  he  dedicated  it.  Mr.  Cross- 
ley  was  an  admirable  antiquary,  and  the  world  is  in  his  debt 
for  a  first-rate  edition  of  Potts's  Disco  verie  and  for  many  other 
things.  But,  though  very  learned  in  the  literature  of  witch- 
craft, he  was  far  astray  in  his  estimate  of  James's  attitude 
and  in  other  pertinent  matters.  He  ignores  the  Elizabethan 
statute  and  lays  stress  on  that  of  James,  "enacted,"  he  avers, 
"as  the  adulatory  tribute  of  all  parties,  against  which  no 
honest  voice  was  raised,  to  the  known  opinions  of  tjre  mon- 
arch." 46  Mr.  Crossley  could  not  fail  to  observe  that  the 
passage  of  the  "execrable  statute"  of  1604  was  not  followed 
by  an  instant  fury  of  prosecution.  He  knew  well  that  eight 
years  elapsed  before  anything  took  place  that  was  at  all 
notable.  And  this  is  how  he  expresses  himself :  the  stat- 
ute, he  suggests,  "might  have  been  sharpening  its  appetite 
by  a  temporary  fast  for  the  full  meal  of  blood  by  which 
it  was  eventually  glutted."  47  This  is  not  merely  personi- 
fication, —  it  is  pure  mythology. 

43  Potts,  Wonderfull  Discoverie,  sig.  T2.  u  3.  241  ff. 

45  Journal  of  Nicholas  Assheton,  ed.  Raines,  Chetham  Society,  1848,  pp.  32  ff. 

46  Introduction  to  his  reprint  of  Potts,  Chetham  Society,  vol.  6,  p.  xviii. 

47  Introduction  to  Potts,  p.  xlv. 


16        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

iThe  plain  and  simple  truth  is  this :  During  the  twenty- 
two  years  of  James's  reign  (1603-1625),  there  was  no  more 
excitement  on  the  subject  of  witchcraft,  and  there  were  no 
more  executions,  than  during  the  last  twenty-two  years  of 
Elizabeth  (1581-1603)  J*  James's  accession  was  not  in  any 
sense  the  signal  for  an  outburst  of  prosecution.  As  we  have 
just  noted,  the  first  bad  year  was  1612,  when  he  had  been  on 
the  throne  for  almost  a  decade.  It  is  certain  that  the  statute 
of  1604  was  not  more  severe,  in  its  practical  workings,  than 
the  statute  of  Elizabeth.49  Nor  can  a  single  fact  be  brought 
forward  to  prove  that  James  was  eager, .  during  his  English 
reign,  to  multiply  the  number  of  victims: 

t  We  must  now  examine  the  prevalent  opinion  that  the  stat- 
ute of  1604  was  passed  to  please  King  James  or  at  his  in- 
stance, or,  indeed,  that  he  wrote  the  bill  himself.  Most 
readers  will  be  surprised  to  learn  that  not  a  particle  of  direct 
evidence  has  ever  been  adduced  in  favor  of  any  of  these 
propositions.  They  rest  entirely  upon  assumption  or  in- 
ference. The  earliest  testimony  that  I  can  discover50  is 
Hutchinson's,  in  1718,  —  more  than  a  century  late ;  and 
Hutchinson,  more  suo,  is  commendably  cautious.  He  does 
not  profess  to  have  any  authority  for  his  views.  "I  cannot 
forbear  thinking  "  —  such  are  his  words  —  "that  it  was  the 
King's  Book  and  Judgment,  more  than  any  Encrease  of 
Witches,  that  influenc'd  the  Parliament  to  the  changing  the 
Old  Law."  51  And  again,  "I  cannot  but  think,  that  if  King 
James  himself  was  not  the  first  Mover  and  Director  in  this 
change  of  the  Statute,  yet  there  might  probably  be  a  Design 
of  making  Court  to  the  King  by  it."  52  He  frankly  labels 
his  theory  "the  best  Guess  I  can  make."  53     The  "juryman  " 

48  Exact  figures  are  unattainable,  but  the  records  are  quite  as  trustworthy  for 
1603-1625  as  for  1581-1603.  It  is  altogether  unlikely  that  a  complete  scrutiny  would 
bring  to  light  more  new  cases  of  execution  for  the  later  period  than  for  the  earlier. 

49  That  is,  not  more  severe  during  James's  reign.  For  what  occurred  long  after 
the  king's  death,  he  cannot  be  blamed. 

60  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  what  Thomas  Cooper  says  in  The  Mysterie  of  Witch- 
craft, 1617,  p.  7,  will  not  be  taken  as  evidence  in  favor  of  the  current  view.  Here- 
tofore it  has  not  been  so  utilized. 

61  Historical  Essay  concerning  Witchcraft,  1718,  p.  179  (ed.  1720,  p.  221). 

62  P.  180.  Here  Hutchinson  is  referring  to  a  particular  part  of  the  statute  (about 
the  violation  of  graves). 

63  P.  178. 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  17 

(his  interlocutor  in  the  dialogue)  accepts  the  theory:  "I 
am  the  apter  to  believe  this  Account ;  because  I  have  often 
heard,  that  our  Law  did  come  from  thence,"  that  is,  from 
Scotland  along  with  the  new  king.54  Dr.  William  Harris,  in 
his  account  of  James  I.  (1753),  follows  Hutchinson,  whom  he 
cites,  remarking  that  the  statute  was  "formed  out  of  com- 
pliment (as  has  been  well  conjectured)."  55  Scott,  in  1810, 
follows  Hutchinson,  remarking  that  the  statute  "probably 
had  its  rise  in  the  complaisance  of  James's  first  Parliament."  56 
By  1829  the  tradition  had  hardened  considerably,  so  that 
a  writer  in  the  Gentleman's  Magazine  asserted  that  James 
"is  said  to  have  penned  [the  statute]  himself."  57  So  much 
for  the  external  evidence,  —  now  for  the  probabilities. 

In  the  first  place,  the  text  of  the  statute  is  sufficient  proof 
that  James  did  not  draft  it  himself.  For  it  is  not  a  new  law. 
It  follows,  in  the  main,  the  Elizabethan  statute  word  for 
word.  At  the  utmost,  James  can  be  suspected  of  penning 
only  a  few  phrases.  This  part  of  the  charge  we  may  there- 
fore dismiss  without  ceremony.  But  what  of  the  view  that 
James  fathered  or  fostered  the  bill,  that  it  was  introduced 
at  his  instance,  or  passed  with  an  eye  to  his  favor  ?  Was 
there,  or  was  there  not,  such  a  state  of  public  opinion  in  Eng- 
land as  will  account  for  the  statute  without  our  having  re- 
course to  the  conjecture  that  it  was  passed  under  James's 
influence  or  out  of  complaisance  to  him  ? 

If  this  were  merely  a  question  of  the  rank  and  file  of  the 
people,  there  would  be  no  room  for  argument.  The  last  few 
years  of  Elizabeth's  reign  abounded  in  witch  prosecutions  and 
were  marked  by  intense  popular  excitement  on  the  subject. 
A  typical  outbreak  was  that  in  Devon  in  1601  and  1602, 
when  the  Trevisard  family  was  complained  of  before  Sir 
Thomas  Ridgeway.58  But  we  are  now  occupied  with  the 
lawmakers,  who,  though  constantly  exposed  to  pressure  from 
the  populace,  may  conceivably  have  preferred  the  status  quo. 
Was  there,  or  was  there  not,  before  James's  accession,  a 


M  P.  180.  w  Pp.  40-41. 

68  Somers  Tracts,  2d  edition,  3.  95. 

67  In  a  series  of  articles  on  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  Witchcraft,  containing  muc 
valuable  material.     Gentleman's  Magazine  Library,  Popular  Superstitions,  p.  233 

68  See  the  original  examinations  (inedited)  in  the  Harvard  College  Library. 


18        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

movement  among  the  better  educated  classes  for  a  revision 
of  the  law  and  a  sharpening  of  the  penalties  ?  To  test  this 
question,  we  may  consult  four  well-known  treatises  which 
are  seldom  scrutinized  from  this  point  of  view^i  We  will 
begin  with  Perkins's  Discourse. 

^  William JPerkins,  the  eminent  theologian^  born  jn^T^gg^ 
wasFejlow  of  Christ's  College,  Cambridge,  from  1584  to 
159J  He  diedjn  1602,  leayjng_behind  him  A  Discourse  of 
the  Damned  ArTof  WitcEcraft.  which  was  published  in  1608 
by^  Thomas  Pokering,  B.D,  of  Cambridge,  and  Minister  of 
FinchjngfieldT  Essex.  Pickering  dedicated  the  volume  to 
Coke.  Though  not  issued  in  the  author's  lifetime,  this  trea- 
tise is  good  evidence  as  to  what  the  views  of  learned  English- 
men were  at  the  turn  of  the  century.  Nor  was  it  without 
influence  before  Perkins  died,  for,  as  the  title-page  sets 
forth,  the  discourse  was  "framed  and  delivered  "  by  him 
"in  his  ordinarie  course  of  Preaching."  It  came  from  the 
press  of  the  Cambridge  University  Printer. 

Perkins's  book  is  a  masterpiece.  It  is  cogently  reasoned, 
and  marked  by  that  concise  and  simple  style  for  which  this 
author  was  distinguished  above  his  contemporaries.  We 
may  shudder  at  his  opinions,  but  are  forced  to  admire  his 
candor  and  ability. —  Perkins  warns  his  readers  against  eon- 
yjcting  on  slender  evidence.  His  virile  and  methodical  in- 
tellect draws  the  line  sharply  between  presumptions  that  jus- 
tify suspicion,  and  proofs  that  warrant  a  verdict  of  guilty.59 
Certain  superstitious  popular  tests  he  rejects  utterly,  — 
such  as  scratching  the  witch,  and  firing  the  thatch  of  her 
cottage,  and  the  ordeal  by  swimming.60  Some  of  these, 
he  declares,  "if  not  all,  are  after  a  sort  practises  of  Witch- 
craft, hauing  in  them  no  power  or  vertue  to  detect  a  Sor- 
cerer, either  by  Gods  ordinance  in  the  creation,  or  by  any 
speciall  appointment  since."  In  scouting  the  water  ordeal, 
Perkins  may  have  had  his  eye  upon  King  James's  defence 
of  it  in  the  Daemonologie.  "It  appeares,"  the  king  had  writ- 
ten, "that  God  hath  appointed Ho_r_a.  st  1  pern aturall  signe 
of  the  monstrous  impietie  of  Witches)  that  the_wjjterj&all 
refuse  to  receiue  them  in  her  bosomej  thatjiaue  shakenoff 

; , ■  ;  : 

69  Pp.  200  ff.  60  Pp.  206  ff. 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  19 

them_the  sacred  Water  of  Baptisme,  and  wilfully  refused 
the  benefite  thereof."  61  Note  the  brevity  and  force  of  Per- 
kins's refutation : — "To  iustifie  the  casting  of  a  Witch  into 
the  water,  it  is  alledged,  that  hauing  made  a  couenant  with  the 
deuill,  shee  hath  renounced  her  Baptisme,  and  hereupon  there 
growes  an  Antipathie  betweene  her,  and  water.  Ans.  This 
allegation  serues  to  no  purpose :  for  all  water  is  not  the  water 
of  Baptisme,  but  that  onely  which  is  vsed  in  the  very  act 
of  Baptisme,  and  not  before  nor  after.  The  element  out  of 
the  vse  of  the  Sacrament,  is  no  Sacrament,  but^ceiJirnes 
again_to_his  common  yse/>  62  Let  us  remark,  in  passing, 
that  Thomas  Pickering,  a  beneficed  clergyman,  did  not 
hesitate  to  publish  this  unceremonious  denial  of  the  king's 
argument  in  1608,  when  James  had  been  five  years  on  the 
throne,  and  to  dedicate  the  work  which  contains  it  to  Chief 
Justice  Coke.  This  may  serve  to  correct,  pro  tanto,  the  too 
prevalent  opinion  that  James  I.  expected  his  English  subjects 
to  receive  his  Dsemonologie  as  but  little,  if  at  all,  inferior  in 
authority  to  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

Our  immediate  concern,  however,  is  with  the  general 
tendency  of  Perkins's  treatise,  and  in  particular  with  his 
precepts  as  to  punishment.  He^dmi  ts,  the^ wJich-dogm a. 
in  its  entirety.  The  ground  pjLan_^or_cjer^is._a_Jje^ue_-OjL. 
covenant,  with-the  dexiL  wiicJi_ may  _hfi_eithex_£xpr e.ss_or_ 
imrjlicit.  There  are  two  kinds  of  ¥^chcrafta_rrrJQainely^  \ 
cfivmjng  and  working.63  The  second  class  includes  the  rais- 
ing of  storms,  the  poisoning  of  the  air  (which  brings  pesti- 
lence), the  blasting  of  corn,  "the  procuring  of  strange  pas- 
sions and  torments  in  mens  bodies  and  other  creatures,  with 
the  curing  of  the  same."  64  It  is  an  error  to  hold  that  melan- 
cholia so  deludes  women  that  they  imagine  themselves 
witches  when  indeed  they  are  none.  Perhaps,  after  the 
witch  has  made  her  contract  with  the  fiend,  she  may  credit 
herself  with  imaginary  powers,  but  the  wonders  already 
enumerated  she  can  certainly  perform,  with  Satan's  aid.65 
Thus  Perkins  opposes  himself  squarely  to  Wierus  and  Scot. 
His  refutation  of  their  theories  is  solid  and  convincing,  if  we 

61  London,  Printed  for  William  Apsley  and  W.  Cotton,  1603,  p.  80  (misprinted, 
"64"). 

62  P.  208.  "  P.  55.  M  P.  128.  65  Pp.  191-196. 


20        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

admit  what  nobody  dreamt  of  denying,  —  the  existence  of 
evil  spirits.  His  book,  indeed,  may  be  taken  as  a  measure 
of  the  slight  effect  which  these  dissentients  had  produced  on 
the  minds  of  sixteenth-century  Englishmen. 

As  to  the  law  against  witchcraft,  Perkins  is  an  invaluable 
witness.  He  wrote  when  the  Elizabethan  statute  was  in 
force,  and  he  was  of  course  not  under  the  sway  of  King  James 
of  Scotland,  with  whose  theories,  indeed,  we  have  seen  him 
at  outspoken  variance.  Perkins  believes  that  the  law_of 
Moses  shouldcontinue  in  force,  and  that  "all  WitchesJbeeing^ 
thoroughly  conuicted  by  the  Magistrate^"  should  be  put  to 
Heathy66  He  expressly  declares  that  this  punishment  ought 
to  be  inflicted  not  only  upon  those  who  kill  by  means  of  witch- 
craft, but  upon  all  witches  without  any  exception  whatever, 
—  upon  "all  Diuiners,  Charmers,  Iuglers,  all  Wizzards, 
commonly  called  wise  men  and  wise  women."  He  includes 
in  plain  terms  all  so-called  "good  Witches,  which  doe  no 
hurt  but  good,  which  doe  not  spoile  and  destroy,  but  saue 
and  deliver."  Here  he  uses  a  really  unanswerable  argu- 
ment, which  shows  in  the  most  striking  fashion  how  ill- 
equipped  we  are,  with  our  mild  penal  laws,  to  sit  in  judg- 
ment on  the  severity  —  whether  actual  or  comparative  — 
of  the  Jacobean  statute.  "By  the  lawes  of  England," 
writes  Perkins,  "the  thiefe  is  executed  for  stealing,  and  we 
think  it  iust  and  profitable :  but  it  were  a  thousand  times 
better  for  the  land,  if  all  Witches,  but  specially  the  blessing 
Witch  might  suffer  death.  For  the  thiefe  by  his  stealing, 
and  the  hurtfull  Inchanter  by  charming,  bring  hinderance 
and  hurt  to  the  bodies  and  goods  of  men;  but  these  are 
the  right  hand  of  the  deuill,  by  which  he  taketh  and 
destroieth  the  soules  of  men.  Men  doe  commonly  hate 
and  spit  at  the  damnifying  Sorcerer,  as  vnworthie  to 
Hue  among  them;  whereas  the  other  is  so  deare  vnto 
them,  that  they  hold  themselues  and  their  countrey  blessed 
that  haue  him  among  them,  they  flie  vnto  him  in 
necessitie,  they  depend  vpon  him  as  their  god,  and  by 
this  meanes,  thousands  are  carried  away  to  their  finall 
confusion.     Death  therefore  is  the  iust  and  deserued  por- 

66  P.  247. 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  21 

tion   of   the  good  Witch."      These  are  the   closing  words 
of  Perkins's  weighty  treatise.67 

Perkins  was  a  vital  force  in  forming  English  opinion-while 
he  was  alive,  especially  during  the  last  decade  oLthe-sixteenth 
century  and  at  the  begiiming_jaLJ&e__sevwt^^  Few 
Cambridge  lecturers  were  more  authoritative,  and  Cambridge 
was  in  close  contact  with  public  men.  He  "was  buried  with 
great  solemnity  at  the  sole  charges  of  Christs  Colledge,  the 
University  and  Town  striving  which  should  expresse  more 
sorrow  at  his  Funeral ;  Doctor  Montague  Preached  his 
Funeral  Sermon  upon  that  Text,  Moses  my  Servant  is  dead"  68 
This  was  James  Montagu,  first  Master  of  Sidney  Sussex 
College,  afterwards  Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells  (1608)  and  of 
Winchester  (1616).  Bishop  Hall,  who  was  at  Cambridge 
while  Perkins  was  active,  commends  him  warmly.  "A 
worthy  divine,"  he  calls  him,  "whose  labors  are  of  much  note 
and  use  in  the  Church  of  God."  69  Fuller  is  also  among  his 
admirers.70  How  the  Discourse  worked  when  its  substance 
was  orally  delivered  "in  his  ordinarie  course  of  preaching  " 
may  be  inferred  from  the  respect  with  which  the  printed 
book  is  continually  cited,  —  by  Cotta,  for  example,  in  his 
Triall  of  Witch-craft  (1616). 71  Cotta's  treatise  is  likewise 
dedicated  to  Coke. 

Jojmjlotta  j^a^^,  T^ 
and  later  of  Corpus  Christi.  He  received  the  degree  of  M.A. 
in  1596,  and  that  of  M.D.  in  1603.  His  first  book  appeared 
in  1612.  It  contains  a  good  deal  about  witchcraft.  In 
1616  he  published  ajsystematic  treatise.  A  Triall  of ..  JSitch.- 
ggjjkllf  which  a  second  edition  came  out  in  1624.  The  main 
objecJLpjjthis  workJs  to  prove  that_anv  ffiven  case  joLalleged 
j*orcerx_miglitAoJ^-£^  senses  and 

reason^^like _othejL_Qbxects  ^l^nYestigation.     Cotta,   then, 
is^on  the  right  side.     He  follows  Wierus  in  maintaining  that 

67  Pp.  256-257.  For  other  expressions  of  opinion  on  witchcraft,  see  Perkins's 
Golden  Chaine,  ed.  1605,  pp.  34-36,  and  his  Combate  betweene  Christ  and  the 
Diuell,  ed.  1606,  pp.  16,  25,  37. 

68  Samuel  Clarke,  Life  of  Perkins  (Marrow  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  Part  i., 
3d  ed.,  1675,  p.  416) ;  cf.  John  Manningham's  Diary,  ed.  Bruce,  Camden  Society, 
p.  104 ;   Fuller,  Holy  State,  ed.  1840,  p.  71. 

69  Works,  Oxford,  1837,  6.  340. 

™  See  note  68  above.  71  Pp.  53,  89,  91,  95. 


22        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

many  so-called  bewitched  persons  are  suffering  from  natural 
disease.  When  he  wrote  he  was  practising  at  Northampton, 
where  he  had  resided  ever  since  he  took  his  medical  degree 
in  1603.  His  rationalizing  attitude  was  largely  the  result 
of  his  own  experience  as  a  physician  during  this  interval. 

The  whole  ground  of  Cotta's  argument  is  an  acceptance 
of  the  traditional  witch-dogma.  He  believes  that  there  are 
witches  in  plenty ;  that  they  make  contracts  with  the  devil ; 
that  supernatural  deeds  are  performed  by  the  fiend,  in  which 
the  witch  "hath  a  property  and  interest"  by  virtue  of  her 
covenant  with  him ;  that,  in  this  way,  witches  may  be  im- 
plicated in  afflicting  their  fellow-creatures  with  diseases  or  in 
causing  their  death.  As  concrete  examples,  we  may  take 
the  witches  of  Warboys  (1589-1593)  and  the  Lancashire 
witches  (1612),  for  both  of  those  notorious  cases  are  accepted 
by  Cotta  without  demur.72  And,  just  as  he  is  confident 
that  the  guilt  of  a  witch  may  be  discovered  with  certainty 
by  methods  of  reason  and  perception  which  he  develops 
elaborately,  so  he  is  content  to  leave  her  to  the  courts,  to 
be  "arraigned  and  condemned  of  manifest  high  treason 
against  Almighty  God,  and  of  combination  with  his  open  and 
professed  enemy  the  Diuell."  73  The  statute  of  1604  was 
none  too  rigorous  for  Dr.  Cotta.  If  these  were  his  sentiments 
in  1616,  when  he  was  writing  a  cautionary  and  corrective 
treatise,  we  may  be  certain  that  his  views  were  quite  as 
orthodox  at  the  turn  of  the  century,  when  he  was  still  at  the 
University  of  Cambridge  and  subject  to  the  influence  of  Per- 
kins, whom  he  cites  with  so  much  respect. 

From  Cambridge  we  turn  to  Oxford.  Thomas  Cnoppr, 
of  Christ  Church,  was  A.B.  in  1590,  A.M.  in  1593,  JB.D.  in 
1600.  In  1601  he  was  presented  ISyTiis  college  to  a  living 
in  Cheshire,  which  he  resigned  in  1604.  From  1604  to  1610 
he  was  vicar  of  Holy  Trinity,  Coventry.74  j^_volume 
entitled  The  My_stery_of  .WitcL-craft  was  not  published  until 
1617,T>ut  it  embodies  information  enougli_about  the  author's, 

72  Pp.  77,  90.  73  P.  80. 

74Ormerod,  County  of  Chester,  ed.  Helsby,  1.  611;  Joseph  Welch,  List  of  the 
Queen's  Scholars  of  St.  Peter's  College,  Westminister,  ed.  Phillimore,  p.  59; 
Foster,  Alumni  Oxonienses,  1.  325 ;  Dictionary  of  National  Biography ;  Cooper, 
Mystery,  sig.  A2. 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  23 

experiences  and  opinions  in  the  time  preceding^  the  accession 
of  James  to  make  it  available  for  our  present  purposes. 
Cooper's  acquaintance  with  magic  began  while  he  was  a 
student  at  Oxford.  There  was  a  time,  he  tells  us,  when 
he  "admired  some  in  the  Vniuersitie  famozed  in  that  skill." 
"Did  not,"  he  exclaims,  —  "did  not  the  Lord  so  dispose  of 
mee,  that  my  Chamber-fellow  was  exceedingly  bewitched 
with  these  faire  shewes,  and  hauing  gotten  diuers  bookes  to 
that  end,  was  earnest  in  the  pursuit  of  that  glorie  which 
might  redound  thereby  ?  Did  not  wee  communicate  our 
Studies  together  ?  was  not  this  skill  proposed  and  canuased 
in  common  ?  And  did  not  the  Lord  so  arme  his  vnworthy 
seruant,  that  not  onely  the  snare  was  gratiously  espied ;  but, 
by  the  great  mercie  of  my  God,  the  Lord  vsed  mee  as  a 
meanes  to  diuert  my  Chamber-fellow  from  these  dangerous 
studies?"  75  Thus  we  learn  that  when  Cooper  received  his 
Cheshire  living,  in  1601,  he  was  deeply  impressed  with  the 
horror  of  dealing  with  devils.  Between  this  date  and  1610 
he  had  several  encounters  with  witchcraft,  —  at  North wich 
(near  Chester),  in  Lancashire,  and  at  Coventry.76  Some  of 
these  are  perhaps  too  late  for  us  to  use,  but  the  Northwich 
jncidentjffl-lls  in  1601  and  1609  77  At  all  events,  we  are  safe 
in  believing  that  the  sentiments  which  Cooper  expresses  in 
his  volume  do  not  differ  appreciably  from  those  which  he 
entertained  before  James's  accession.  Now  Cooper  agrees 
in  all  essentials  and  in  most  particulars  with  Perkins,  from 
whom  he  borrows  largely  without  due  acknowledgment.78 
Writing  after  the  passage  of  the  statute  of  1604,  he  rejoices 
that  the  law  has  been  made  severer.79  Yet  he  is  not  satisfied. 
Like  Perkins,  he  holds  that  "the  Blesser  or  good  Witch  .  .  . 
is  farre  more  dangerous  then  the  Badde  or  hurting  Witch,"  80 
and  that  both  kinds  ought  to  be  extirpated.     Thus  it  ap- 

75  Pp.  12-13.  76  Sig.  A3,  A4,  p.  13. 

77  Deacon  and  Walker  refer  to  the  case  in  their  Summarie  Answere  to  Darrel, 
1601,  p.  237.  Darrel,  in  A  Survey  of  Certain  Dialogical  Discourses,  1602,  p.  54, 
gives  the  boy's  name  ("  Tho.  Harison  of  North  Wych  in  Ches  shire"),  and  says  that 
he  is  "at  this  present  very  greuously  vexed  by  Sathan." 

78  Compare,  for  instance,  Cooper,  pp.  52-55,  with  Perkins,  pp.  19-22,  26,  27, 
30,  31,  33,  34;  Cooper,  pp.  64-65,  with  Perkins,  pp.  41-43;  Cooper,  p.  68,  with 
Perkins,  pp.  47-48;  Cooper,  pp.  128-133,  136,  with  Perkins,  pp.  55-67,  73,  92, 
104. 

79  P.  314.  80  P.  232. 


24        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

pears  that  Cooper,  though  he  wrote  after  the  passage  of  the 
statute  of  1604,  may  serve  as  a  witness  to  the  opinions  that 
prevailed  among  many  of  the  clergy  at  about  the  turn  of  the 
century. 

Our  fourth  witness  is  a  very  strong  one,  and  his  testimony 
is  not  complicated  by  inferences  about  dates.  jHe^is  George 
Gifl^rdi^another  J3rfordjmam_  .Giffard's  Dialogue  concern- 
ing  Witcjie^andJWitchcrafts  was  first  published  in  159JL  — 
a  year  otherwise  notable  in  the  annals  of  English  sorcery, 
as  we  shall  see  in  a  moment.  It  was  reissued  in  1603,  three 
years~a7ter  his  death.81  Giffard  was  an  eminent  preacher 
of  Maldon,  in  Essex.  He  passes  for  one  of  the  earliest  op- 
ponents  of  the  witchcraft  delusion, ^and_with  some  reason, 
TorJie_held  that  sickness  and  death  ascribed  to -witchcraft 
were  due  to  natural  causes,  he  repudiated  spectral  and  hear- 
say evidence,  andjhe  argued_against  cojiviciing  anybody 
except  on  conclusive  testimony.  Yet  it  never  entered  his 
head  to  deny  the  existence  of  witches  or  to  doubt  that  they 
have  dealings  with  the  fiend.  He  tells  us  that  the  times 
were  devil-haunted.  "It  falleth  out  in  many  places  euen 
of  a  sudden,  as  it  seemeth  to  me,  and  no  doubt  by  the  heauie 
iudgement  of  God,  that  the  Diuels  as  it  were  let  loose,  do 
more  preuaile,  then  euer  I  haue  heard  of.  .  .  .  Satan  is 
now  heard  speake,  and  beleeued.  He  speaketh  by  con- 
iurers,  by  sorcerers,  and  by  witches,  and  his  word  is  taken. 
He  deuiseth  a  number  of  things  to  be  done,  &  they  are  put  in 
practise  and  followed."  82  Giffard  is  here  speaking  in  his 
own  person.  Elsewhere  in  the  dialogue  he  gives  us  a  first- 
rate  account  of  the  popular  terror.  One  of  the  interlocutors 
is  "Samuel,"  an  honest  and  well-to-do  goodman.  "They 
say,"  declares  Samuel,  "there  is  scarse  any  towne  or  village 
in  all  this  shire,  but  there  is  one  or  two  witches  at  the  least 
in  it."  ™  And  the  annals  of  Essex  bear  out  Samuel's  views. 
Thirteen  witches,  as  we  have  seen,  were  convicted  and  ten 

81  The  Dictionary  of  National  Biography  and  Dr.  Usher  date  Giffard's  death 
1620.  But  he  was  doubtless  the  George  Giffard  of  Maldon  whose  will  was  proved 
in  1600  (Transactions  of  the  Essex  Archaeological  Society,  New  Series,  7. 46).  For 
Giffard's  connection  with  the  Classical  Movement  of  1573-1592,  see  It.  G.  Usher, 
Presbyterian  Movement,  1905,  pp.  xli,  9,  16,  19,  42,  94.  For  Giffard's  reputation 
see  D'Ewes,  Autobiography,  ed.  Halliwell,  1.  114. 

82  Dedicatory  Epistle.  *  Ed.  1603,  sig.  A  3. 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  25 

of  them  hanged  at  Chelmsford  in  1582,  and  there  were  other 
executions  there  in  1579  and  1589.  It  was  an  outbreak 
in  that  same  neighborhood  in  1645  that  started  Matthew 
Hopkins  on  his  career ;  and  the  evidence  and  confessions  went 
back,  in  some  instances  for  twenty,  and  even  thirty  years.84 
Giff  ard  was  a  man  of  unusual  humanity  and  strong  common 
sense,  as  his  book  shows.  Yet  he  was  heartily  in  favor  of 
a  severer  law  than  the  statute  of  Elizabeth.  The  following 
passage  from  his  Dialogue  is  a  precious  document  for  our 
present  purposes.  "Daniel  "  is  the  speaker  who  presents 
Giffard's  own  views;   "M.  B."  is  a  schoolmaster. 

Dan.  A  witch  by  the  word  of  God  ought  to  die  the  death,  not  because 
she  killeth  men,  for  that  she  cannot  (vnles  it  be  those  witches  which  kill 
by  poyson,  which  either  they  receiue  from  the  diuell,  or  hee  teacheth  them 
to  make)  but  because  she  dealeth  with  diuels.  And  so  if  a  Iurie  doe  finde 
proofe  that  she  hath  dealt  with  diuels,  they  may  and  ought  to  finde  them 
guiltie  of  witchcraft. 

M.  B.  If  they  finde  them  guiltie  to  haue  dealt  with  diuels,  and  cannot 
say  they  haue  murdered  men,  the  law  doth  not  put  them  to  death. 

Dan.  It  were  to  be  wished,  that  the  law  were  more  [p]erfect  in  that 
respect,  euen  to  cut  off  all  such  abhominations.  These  cunning  men  and 
women  which  deale  with  spirites  and  charmes  seeming  to  doe  good,  and 
draw  the  people  into  manifold  impieties,  with  all  other  which  haue  famil- 
iarity with  deuels,  or  vse  coniurations,  ought  to  bee  rooted  out,  that  others 
might  see  and  feare.     (Sig.  K3.) 

Here_s:e_have  jaJughly.  intelligentjr^eacher^a  man  of  .real 
influence,  pressing  for  precisely  that  change. in  the  law  — 
the  extension  of  the  death  penalty  to  witchcraft  that  pro- 
o^ces^oj^ly_injuxy  without  _  dea^^-^hich  _  was  _  actually 
embodied  in  the  statute  of  1604.  And  Giffard,  like  Perkins, 
condemns  the  "white  witch  "  utterly.  The  evidence  speaks 
for  itself. 

Perkins's  Discourse  and  Giffard's  Dialogue  are  strongly 
contrasted  works.  Giffard  addresses  his  teaching  to  the 
unlearned :  he  throws  his  book  into  the  form  of  a  conversa- 
tion (so  he  tells  us)  "to  make  it  fitter  for  the  capacity  of  the 
simpler  sort."  Perkins,  on  the  other  hand,  writes  for  edu- 
cated persons,  —  for  those  who  can  follow  a  close-knit 
scholastic  argument.     Giffard's  aim  is  to  free  the  minds  of 

84  A  True  and  Exact  Relation  of  the  severall  Informations  [etc.]  of  the  late 
Witches,  1645,  pp.  8,  15,  32,  34. 


26        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

the  common  people  from  needless  terrors  and  to  prevent  the 
shedding  of  innocent  blood.  Perkins,  though  he  warns  his 
readers  (as  Giffard  does)  against  condemning  on  slender 
evidence,  is  chiefly  bent  on  defending  the  witchcraft  dogma 
against  the  assaults  of  Wierus  and  Reginald  Scot.  Yet  both 
Giffard  and  PerlrinSjioId  tenaciously  to  the  inherited  belief. 
There  are  such  things  a.s  witches:  they  do  ally  themselves 
with  the  devil ;  they  should  be  punished?  And  in  this  matter 
of  the  penalty  —  which  is  our  chief  concern  at  the  moment  — 
Giffard  and  Perkins  are  in  perfect  accord.  Both  maintain 
that  all  witches  ought  to  be  put  to  death,  irrespective  of  the  ques- 
tion whether  they  have  killed  men  by  their  arts  or  not.  In  other 
words,  the  Elizabethan  statute  seemed  to  them  insufficient, 
and  they  urged  the  enacting  of  a  law  of  greater  severity. 
Could  there  be  more  illuminating  evidence?  Nothing  can 
be  clearer  than  that,  about  the  turn  of  the  century,  before 
Elizabeth  was  dead  and  James  had  taken  her  place,  there 
was  strong  pressure  for  a  revision  of  the  witchcraft  law,  and 
for  revision  in  the  direction  taken  by  the  statute  of  1604. 
This  was  the  kind  of  pressure  to  which  the  legislators  yielded 
—  nothing  loth,  to  be  sure.  They  were  not  browbeaten  by 
King  ejames,  nor  did  they  vote  with  an  eye  to  the  royal  favor. 
They  followed  their  own  consciences,  incited  by  the  feelings 
of  the  populace  and  stimulated  by  the  exhortations  of  the 
gravest  counsellors  they  knew. 

TheJVvnr  books  thai,  we  have  just  examined  would  suffice 
to  prove,  even  if  there  were  no  other  evidence,  that  the  acces- 
sion  of  James  found  the  English  public  —  both  in  its  educated 
'ancTTts  uneducated  classes  —  deeply  impressed  with  the 
actuality  of  witchcraft  as  an  ever-present  menace  to  soul  and 
\^  body,  intensely  excited  on  the  subject,  and  pressing  hard 
for  the  extermination  of  witches,85  But  there  is^rther  evi- 
dence in  plenty.  The  records  from  1582  to  1603  abound  in 
specific  cases.  Two  items  call  for  particular  notice :  the 
Darrel  affair  (1586-1601),  and  the  affair  of  the  Witches  of 
Warboys  (1589-1593).  There  is  a  close  psychological  con- 
nection between  them. 

85  The  general  anxiety  of  Englishmen  as  Elizabeth's  death  drew  nigh  is  graphi- 
cally described  by  Dekker,  The  Wonderfull  Yeare,  1603  (Works,  ed.  Grosart,  1. 
94-96).     Such  crises  are  always  favorable  to  outbreaks  of  witch-prosecution. 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  27 

John  Darrel,  a  Cambridge  graduate,  was  a  Puritan 
preacher  in  Derbyshire  when  (in  1586)  he  began  his  career 
as  a  caster-out  of  devils.  In  1598  he  was  summoned  before 
an  ecclesiastical  commission  over  which  Archbishop  Whit- 
gift  presided.  Bishop  Bancroft  and  Chief  Justice  Anderson 
were  members  of  the  commission.  More  than  forty  witnesses 
were  called.  Some  of  the  demoniacs  confessed  fraud,  and 
Darrel,  with  his  associate  George  More,  was  convicted  of 
imposture  and  imprisoned.86  There  had  been  an  uproar  over 
the  possessions  and  the  exorcisms,  and  popular  opinion  sided 
with  Darrel.  Samuel  Harsnet,  the  cleverest  of  Bishop  Ban- 
croft's chaplains,  was  delegated  to  write  up  the  case.  His 
famous  Discovery  came  out  in  1599,  and  was  expected  to 
overwhelm  Darrel  with  ridicule  and  odium,  In  the  long  run 
it  has  had  this  result,  for  Darrel  is  usually  treated  nowadays 
as  an  impostor.  But  it  had  no  such  effect  at  the  time.  Both 
Darrel  and  More  wrote  long  replies,  and  printed  them  sur- 
reptitiously in  defiance  of  the  authorities. 

Bancroft  soon  discovered  that  Harsnet's  skirmishing 
was  not  sufficient,  and  he  brought  his  heavy  troops  into 
action.  Two  treatises,  of  unimaginable  ponderosity  in  style 
and  matter,  each  elaborated  in  concert  by  two  preachers, 
John  Deacon  and  John  Walker,  came  out  in  1601.87  Harsnet 
had  railed  and  ridiculed  and  "exposed,"  but  he  had  steered 

clear   of   dialectics.      Pffjnnn    rju]    Wflllcpr   tnilpd    to   supply 

the^esideratum*-  TTsing-all  the  scholastic  machinery*  they 
tried  to  prove,  by  logic  and  Scripture,  that  there  is  no  such 
thing  as  demoniacal  possession  nowadays,  and  that  Dar- 
rel's  demoniacs  werp  either  counterfeiting  or  else  afflicted 
with  natural  Hispasps.  Darrel  promptly  replied  to  both 
books,  printing  his  answers  surreptitiously,  as  before. 

Strange  as  it  may  seem,  Darrel  has  the  best  of  the  argu- 
ment. For  his  opponents  admit  both  too  little  and  too 
much.  They  admit  too  little,  since  they  wish  the  fits  to 
appear  fraudulent,  whereas  these  were,  beyond  a  shadow 
of  doubt,  genuine  hysteria,  of  which  lying  and  imposture  are 
well-recognized  symptoms.  Darrel  was  sharp  enough  to  see 
that,  as  managed  by  his  opponents,  the  hypothesis  of  fraud 

86  Harsnet,  Discovery,  1599,  pp.  8-9. 

87  Summarie  Answere,  and  Dialogicall  Discourses. 


28        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

and  the  hypothesis  of  disease  thwarted  each  other,  and  left 
some  kind  of  demonic  assault  in  possession  of  the  field. 
They  admit  too  much,  because  they  themselves  grant  the 
existence  of  evil  spirits  of  vast  power  (nay,  take  pains  to 
demonstrate  their  existence),  and  because  they  accept 
demoniacal  possession  as  a  fact  in  ancient  times,  though  they 
reject  it  for  the  present  age.  This  rejection  was,  of  course, 
quite  arbitrary,  and  their  attempts  to  justify  it  from  Scripture 
were  pitifully  weak.  Darrel  could  appeal  to  facts  and  ex- 
perience. His  patients  had  manifested  the  same  symptoms 
as  the  demoniacs  of  old,  and  it  was  obviously  absurd  to  force 
a  distinction.  If  the  afflicted  persons  in  Bible  times  were 
possessed  with  devils,  then  his  patients  were  possessed  with 
devils ;  and  if  he  had  relieved  them  (as  he  surely  had),  then 
there  was  no  reason  which  Deacon  and  Walker  could  make 
valid  to  reject  the  corollary  of  dispossession. 

But  what  connection  has  this  strange  affair  with  witch- 
craft ?  Here  we  must  walk  circumspectly,  for  misappre- 
hensions are  rife.  It  is  often  inferred  that  Bancroft  and 
Harsnet,  because  they  denounced  Darrel  and  his  patients 
as  tricksters,  had  no  belief  in  witchcraft.  This  is  a  false 
conclusion.  A  demoniac  is  not  necessarily  bewitched.  He 
may  owe  his  dire  condition  to  some  witch's  malice,  or,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  devil  may  have  assailed  him  immediately, 
without  a  witch's  agency.  Further,  there  are  many  evil 
things  done  by  witches  which  have  no  reference  to  demoni- 
acal possession.  In  all  of  Darrel's  cases,  to  be  sure,  witches 
were  accused.  To  some  extent,  then,  Bancroft  and  his 
assistants  were,jtn_effect,  attemjilin£Llo_jliscrje£lit  the  witch 
dogmaTHsince  they  were  attacking  the  genuineness,  or  the 
diabolical  origin,  of  certain  phenomena  ascribed,  in  these 
particular  insjances^to  witchcraft.  But  (and  we  cannot  be 
too  careful  in  making  the  distinction)  they  did  not  deny  either 
the  existence  or  the  criminality  of  witches  in  general,  any  more 
than  they  denied  the  existence  of  wicked  spirits.  They  strove 
to  explode  the  theory  of  demoniacal  possession;  but  they 
did  not  attack  the  witchcraft  dogma.  Indeed,  they  took 
care  to  avoid  committing  themselves  on  that  head.  For,  even 
if  they  had  no  faith  in  the  dogma,  they  knew  that  to  assail  it 
would  throw  them  out  of  court,  inasmuch  as  the  belief  in 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  29 

witchcraft  was,  in  some  form  or  other,  universal  among  all 
classes  and  all  persuasions. 

Further,  Bancroft  and  his  aids,  in  their  opposition  to 
Darrel,  were  not  espousing  the  cause  of  alleged  witches,  — 
or,  if  so,  they  were  doing  it  in  a  purely  incidental  way.  Their 
object  was  quite  definite  and  unconcealed.  They  were  war- 
ring against  the  Puritans  88  and  the  Roman  Catholics,  whom 
they  regarded  as  foes  to  Church  and  State.  Puritan 
preachers  and  Roman  Catholic  priests  both  professed  to  cast 
out  devils.  In  Bancroft's  eyes  these  were  absurd  pretensions. 
Yet  the  people  and  many  of  the  clergy  were  much  impressed. 
There  was  danger  ahead,  so  the  Bishop  thought.  A  vigorous 
campaign  was  necessary.  But  the  campaign  was  political 
and  ecclesiastical,  not  humanitarian.  Its  aim  was  not  to 
save  witches,  but  to  crush  exorcists.89 

Here  is  a  significant  bit  of  evidence  on  this  point.  In 
1602  Mary  Glover,  the  daughter  of  a  merchant  in  Thames 
Street,  had  weird  seizures,  which  she  attributed  to  the  malign 
spells  of  Elizabeth  Jackson.  The  neighbors  were  eager  to 
prosecute,  but  a  physician  informed  Chief  Justice  Anderson 
that  "the  maid  did  counterfeit."  Anderson  directed  Sir 
John  Croke  (Recorder  of  London)  to  summon  the  girl  to 
his  chamber  in  the  Temple  and  test  the  matter.     Croke 

88 "  Phantastical  giddy-headed  Puritans"  Archbishop  Matthew  Hutton  of  York 
calls  them  in  a  letter  to  Whitgift,  Oct.  1,  1603  (Strype's  Life  of  Whitgift,  1718,  p. 
570). 

89  The  exorcisms  of  the  Jesuit  Edmunds  (alias  Weston)  and  his  associates  in 
1585  and  1586  were  similarly  attacked  by  Bancroft  and  Harsnet.  See  Harsnet's 
famous  diatribe,  A  Declaration  of  Egregious  Popish  Impostures,  1603  (2d  edition, 
1605) .  The  Roman  Catholics  were  no  more  convinced  in  this  case  than  the  Puritans 
were  in  that  of  Darrel  (see  the  references  to  Yepez  and  others  in  Mr.  T.  G.  Law's 
article  on  Devil-Hunting  in  Elizabethan  England,  in  the  Nineteenth  Century  for 
March,  1894,  35.  397  ff.).  On  Sir  George  Peckham,  who  was  involved  in  this  affair, 
see  Merrimam,  American  Historical  Review,  17,  492  ff.  Compare  Sir  George 
Courthop  on  the  Nuns  of  Loudun  (Memoirs,  Camden  Miscellany,  11.  106-109) ; 
see  also  Evelyn's  Diary,  August  5,  1670. 

Darrel's  opponents  did  their  best  to  stigmatize  his  principles  and  practices  with 
regard  to  demoniacal  possession  as  identical  with  those  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church.  Thus  Deacon  and  Walker,  speaking  of  Darrel,  inform  their  readers  that 
*'he  hath  for  a  season  (though  feare  and  shame  enforceth  him  now  to  pluck  in  his 
head)  very  prowdlie  ietted  from  countrie  to  countrie  like  a  pettie  new  Pope  among 
his  owne  Cardinals;  yea  and  that  also  in  his  pontificalities,  portrayed  and  con- 
tinued after  the  new-found  popelike  cut"  (Summarie  Answere,  1601,  Address  to  the 
Reader). 


30        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

did  so  in  1603,  having  both  the  maid  and  the  witch  present, 
with  divers  neighbors  and  certain  ministers.  He  was  con- 
vinced, by  various  drastic  tests,  that  there  was  no  imposture, 
and  committed  Mother  Jackson  to  Newgate.  At  the  Re- 
corder's instance,  several  ministers  undertook  to  relieve  the 
girl  by  fasting  and  prayer.  They  were  completely  successful. 
One  of  them,  Lewis  Hughes,  was  despatched  to  Bishop  Ban- 
croft with  the  tidings.  He  was  not  well  received.  "I  .  .  . 
could  have  no  audience,"  he  writes,  "and  for  my  paines  I  was 
called  Rascall  and  varlot,  and  sent  to  the  Gatehouse,  where 
hee  kept  me  foure  moneths."  90  But  Mother  Jackson  was 
arraigned  and  convicted  in  due  course.  Bancroft,  we  ob- 
serve, was  certain  that  this  was  not  demoniacal  possession, 
and  he  imprisoned  the  exorciser.  But  he  made  no  effort, 
so  far  as  we  can  learn,  to  rescue  the  witch.  He  left  her  to 
the  courts  with  a  good  conscience. 

This  episode  fell  just  after  the  so-called  exposure  of  Darrel. 
The  date  makes  it  instructive.  The  Recorder,  we  note,  was 
still  a  believer  in  possession,  despite  the  arguments  of  Ban- 
croft's literary  bureau,  and  so  were  many  (perhaps  most)  of 
the  clergy.  Indeed,  we  must  not  too  nastily  assume  that 
all  the  bishops  even  were  ready  to  subscribe  to  Bancroft's 
extreme  tenets.  Take  the  case  of  Thomas  Harrison,  the 
Boy  of  Northwich,  in  Cheshire.  His  fits  began  in  1600  or 
1601  and  lasted  a  year  or  two.  He  was  kept  for  ten  days  in 
the  Bishop  of  Chester's  palace  and  carefully  watched,  but 
no  fraud  was  detected.  The  Bishop  (Richard  Vaughan) 
and  three  other  commissioners  issued  an  order  that,  "for 
[his]  ease  and  deliverance"  from  "his  grievous  afflictions," 
public  prayers  should  be  offered  for  him  in  the  parish  church 
"before  the  congregation  so  oft  as  the  same  assembleth." 
They  delegated  seven  clergymen  to  visit  him  by  turns,  and 
"to  use  their  discretions  by  private  prayer  and  fasting,  for 
the  ease  and  comfort  of  the  afflicted."     Some  held,  this 

90  Certaine  Grievances,  1641,  p.  20.  See  George  Sinclair,  Satan's  Invisible  World 
Discovered,  1685,  Relation  XII  (reprint,  1871,  pp.  95-100;  cf.  Ferguson,  Publi- 
cations of  the  Edinburgh  Bibliographical  Society,  3.  56-57) ;  Commission  on  His- 
torical MSS.,  8th  Report,  Appendix,  Part  i.,  p.  228.  An  account  of  the  affair,  by 
George  Swan,  was  published  in  1603,  under  the  title,  A  True  and  Brief  Report,  etc. 
On  Lewis  Hughes  see  Kittredge,  George  Stirk,  Minister  (reprinted  from  the  Publi- 
cations of  the  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts),  1910,  pp.  18-21. 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  31 

document  informs  us,  "that  the  child  [was]  really  possessed 
of  an  uncleane  spirit."  This  Bishop  Vaughan  and  the  other 
commissioners  doubted.  But  they  did  not  think  he  was 
shamming.  They  had  "seene  the  bodily  affliction  of  the 
said  child,"  and  observed  in  sundry  fits  very  strange  effects 
and  operations,  they  tell  us,  "either  proceeding  of  natural  vn- 
knowne  causes,  or  of  some  diabolical  practise."  91  And  Har- 
vey, one  of  the  clergymen  appointed  by  the  Bishop  to  fast 
and  pray,  wrote  to  a  friend  that  nothing  like  the  "passions 
[i.e.  sufferings],  behavior,  and  speeches"  of  the  boy  had  "ever 
come  under  his  observation  or  occurred  in  his  reading." 
"Few  that  have  seene  the  variety  of  his  fits,  but  they  thinke 
the  divell  hath  the  disposing  of  his  body.  Myselfe  have 
divers  times  seene  him,  and  such  things  in  him  as  are  im- 
possible to  proceed  from  any  humane  creature.  The  matter 
hath  affected  our  whole  country.  The  Divines  with  us 
generally  hold,  that  the  child  is  really  possessed."  92  A  con- 
temporary memorandum  assures  us  that  once,  when  the 
Bishop  was  praying  with  him,  "the  Boy  was  so  outragious, 
that  he  flew  out  of  his  bed,  and  so  frighted  the  Bishops  men, 
that  one  of  them  fell  into  a  sown,  and  the  Bishop  was  glad 
to  lay  hold  on  the  boy,  who  ramped  at  the  Window  to  have 
gotten  out."  93 

Joseph  Hall,  afterwards  Bishop  of  Exeter  (1627)  and  of 
Norwich  (1641),  in  disputing  with  a  Belgian  priest  in  1605, 
asserted  roundly  that  "in  our  church,  we  had  manifest  proofs 
of  the  ejection  of  devils  by  fasting  and  prayer."  94  Hall 
was  a  firm  believer  in  witchcraft  and  approved  of  the  statute 
of  1604.95 


91  Darrel,  Replie,  1602,  p.  21.  «  Darrel.  pp.  21-22. 

93  John  Bruen's  memoranda,  in  William  Hinde's  Life  of  John  Bruen  (born  1560, 
died  1625),  in  Samuel  Clarke,  Marrow  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  Part  ii.,  Book  ii., 
1675,  p.  95.  Bruen  (who  was  a  Cheshire  man)  was  an  eyewitness  of  the  boy's 
fits,  and  his  notes,  as  excerpted  by  Hinde,  give  a  good  idea  of  his  ravings  (pp.  94- 
96).  The  boy  cried  out  against  "the  witch,"  but  I  do  not  find  that  anybody  was 
brought  to  trial. 

94  Autobiography,  Works,  ed.  Hall  (1837),  1.  xxi.  Hall  may  have  had  in  mind 
the  case  reported  by  Bishop  Parkhurst  in  a  letter  to  Bullinger,  June  29,  1574 
(Zurich  Letters,  ed.  Hastings  Robinson,  1842,  No.  118,  translation,  p.  118,  original, 
p.  178). 

95  Works,  6.  136-137;  7.  245-246;  Contemplations,  Works,  ed.  1628,  pp.  1134- 
1135. 


32        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

[  And  now  we  will  go  back  a  few  years  in  order  to  see  what 
the  bishops  and  the  judges  thought,  and  how  they  acted, 

Swhen  a  case  combining  demoniacal  possession  with  witch- 
craft was  not  complicated  by  Puritan  or  Roman  Catholic 
exorcism.  Let  us  examine,  as  briefly  as  may  be,  the  cele- 
brated case  of  the  Witches  of  Warboys.  The  story  has  been 
told  again  and  again,  but  its  actual  bearing  on  the  history  of 
English  witch  prosecution  has  never  been  pointed  out. 
The  Warboys  case  lasted  from  1589.  when  the  fits  of  the 
afflictedhpersons  began,  until  1593,  when  the  witches  were 
hanged   v 

Robert  Throckmorton,  Esquire,  was  a  Huntingdonshire 
gentleman  of  excellent  family  and  connections.  He  was 
of  Ellington,  but  had  removed  to  Warboys  shortly  before 
our  story  begins.  Both  these  places  are  near  the  county 
town,  and  therefore  not  far  from  Cambridge.  The  disturb- 
ance began  in  November,  1589,  when  Jane,  Mr.  Throck- 
morton's daughter^  a^irj  ol_about- Jen  years j  was  attacked 
with  violent^ysteria^  In  her  fits,  she  called  out  against 
Mother  Samuel,  an  aged  neighbor.  Two  first-rate  physi- 
cians of  Cambridge  were  consulted,  Dr.  Barrow  (a  friend  of 
Mr.  Throckmorton's)  and  Master  Butler.  The  latter  was, 
I  suppose,  William  Butler  (1535-1618)  of  Clare  Hall,  of 
whom  Aubrey  tells  several  amusing  anecdotes.  Aubrey 
informs  us  that  he  "never  tooke  the  degree  of  Doctor,  though 
he  was  the  greatest  physician  of  his  time."  96  Both  Barrow 
and  Butler  were  baffled,  and  Barrow  ascribed  the  fits  to 
witchcraft,  remarking  that  he  himself  "had  some  experience 
of  the  mallice  of  some  witches."  97  This  speech  is  worth 
noting,  for  it  throws  light  on  the  state  of  mind  of  university 
men.     Wftlnn  two  jmonj^  — 

ranging  in  age  from  nine  to  fifteen  years  —  were  similarly 
t attacked,  and  they  ajljcried _oujLagainst  Mother__SamueL 
This  affliction  lasted  until  April,  1593,  or  about  three  years 
and  a  half.  In  the  interval  six  or  seven  womenservants 
(for  the  Throckmorton  menage  was  of  course  somewhat 
unstable)  suffered  from  just  such  fits,  —  and  also  the  wife 
of  one  of  the  girls'  maternal  uncles,  Mr.  John  Pickering  of 

96  Brief  Lives,  ed.  Clark,  1.  138. 

97  The  Witches  of  Warboys,  1593,  sig.  B2  r°. 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  33 

Ellington.  J\JpjherSamud_was_belieYed  to  he  the  cause  of 
it  all.  Yet  thechildren'T  parents  acted,  with  exemplary 
caution.  They  had  no  wish  to  prosecute  Mother  Samuel, 
but  treated  her  kindly  and  gave  their  attention  to  caring 
for  the  girls  and  urging  her  to  confess.  Her  confession  and 
repentance,  it  was  hoped,  would  put  an  end  to  the  fits. 

A^ojot_ClmstmaSj 1&9£,  ^Mother  Samuel  admittepLiier, 
guilt.  Even  then  there  was  no  immediate  thought  of  bring- 
ing her  to  justice.  She  was  in  greaLdistress  of  min^^n  j 
bojyb^j^JThrockmorton  and  Dr.  Doringtoiy  the-^parson  of 
^g^grbnySj^eyprtpH  t.hpnnsftlvfts  fn  givp  hpr  Christian  conso- 
lation  as  a  repentant  sinner.  However,  she  almost  imme- 
diately retracted,  whereupon  Mr.  Throckmorton,  losing 
patience  at  last,  took  her  before  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln  (Will- 
iam Chaderton)  and  certain  justices.  She  again  made  ad- 
mission of  guilt.  Soon  after  the  girls  fell  into  their  fits 
afresh,  and  they  now  accused  the  old  woman  of  the  death 
of  Lady  Cromwell,  the  second  wife  of  Sir  Henry  Cromwell 
of  Hinchinbrook,  the  great  landowner  of  those  parts,  known 
for  his  splendor  as  the  Golden  Knight. 

The  Cromwells  and  the  Throckmortons  were  friends,  and, 
in  September,  1590,  Lady  Cromwell,  being  then  at  Ramsey, 
only  two  miles  from  Warboys,  had  made  a  call  of  sympathy 
on  the  family.  Mother  Samuel,  who  lived  next  door,  had 
been  summoned.  The  Samuels  were  Sir  Henry's  tenants, 
and  the  lady  spoke  roughly  to  the  old  woman,  accusing  her 
of  witchcraft,  and  snatched  off  her  cap  and  clipped  off  a 
lock  of  her  hair.  This  she  told  Mistress  Throckmorton  to 
burn.  Mother  Samuel  uttered  some  words  which,  when 
later  remembered,  passed  for  the  damnum  minatum.  That 
night  Lady  Cromwell  was  strangely  attacked,  and  she  died 
after  an  illness  of  a  year  and  a  quarter,  —  that  is,  about  the 
beginning  of  1592.  Nobody  appears  to  have  connected 
Mother  Samuel  with  her  death  until,  in  1593,  the  afflicted 
girls  charged  her  with  it  in  their  ravings.  They  extended 
the  accusation  to  John  Samuel,  her  husband,  and  Agnes, 
her  daughter.     All  three  were  tried  at  Huntingdon  before 

JusticeJFejtmeXC^ Mnthpr  Samuel  nnnfogg^ 

agjtjwith  her  husband  and  Ha.iight.pr,  was  hangpH,  agpnrHjnjpr 

frT  thpjrei^flbethfl11  statute      There  was  no  doubt  of  their 


34        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

guilt  in  anybody's  mind.  Mother  Samuel  herself  thought 
the  girls  bewitched,  and  old  Samuel  was  finally  convinced 
that  his  wife  was  guilty. 

Several  causes  combined  to  make  this  the  most  momentous 
witch-trial  that  had  ever  occurred  in  England.  The  long 
continuance  of  the  phenomena  and  the  station  of  the  victims 
were  alone  sufficient  to  give  the  affair  wide  currency.  The 
family  was  connected  with  many  persons  of  importance. 
Mr.  Robert  Throckmorton  was  related  to  the  Warwickshire 
and  the  Gloucestershire  Throckmortons.  One  of  his  first 
cousins,  also  named  Robert,  lived  at  Brampton,  Northants, 
close  by,  and  often  witnessed  the  girls'  fits.  The  girls' 
maternal  uncle,  Mr.  (afterwards  Sir)  Gilbert  Pickering  of 
Tichmarsh,  and  his  brothers,  John  and  Henry,  were  deeply 
interested,  and  gave  evidence  at  the  assizes.  So  did  Dr. 
Francis  Dorington,  the  Warboys  rector,  who  was  the  hus- 
band of  Mr.  Throckmorton's  sister.  Robert  Poulter,  vicar 
of  Brampton,  another  witness,  was  also  connected  with  the 
family.98  Francis  Cromwell,  Sir  Henry's  brother,  was  one 
of  the  justices  to  whom  Mother  Samuel  confessed.  The 
Cromwells  were  among  the  best-known  commoners  in  the 
kingdom.  Dr.  Dorington's  brother  John,  a  Londoner, 
visited  the  children  in  their  attacks,  and  of  course  he  talked 
of  the  affair  in  the  capital. 

The  connections  with  Cambridge  were  also  very  intimate. 
The  physicians  consulted  by  Mr.  Throckmorton,  as  we  have 
noticed,  lived  there,  and  they  were  both  university  men. 
Dr.  Francis  Dorington,  the  parson  of  Warboys,  who  had 
married  Mr.  Throckmorton's  sister,  and  Thomas  Nutt,  the 
vicar  of  Ellington,  were  also  Cambridge  graduates."  Both 
were  deeply  interested  in  the  case,  and  gave  evidence  at  the 
trial.     Henry   Pickering,    one   of   the   children's   maternal 

98  See  the  Throckmorton  pedigree  (drawn  up  by  Robert  Throckmorton  himself 
in  1613)  in  Charles's  Visitation  of  the  County  of  Huntingdon,  ed.  Ellis,  Camden 
Society,  1849,  pp.  123-124,  and  the  Pulter  pedigree,  in  the  same,  p.  101.  Cf. 
the  Pickering  pedigree  in  Bridges,  Northamptonshire,  2.  383-385. 

99  Dorington  was  A.B.  1555,  Fellow  of  St.  Catherine's  College  1558,  A.M.  1559, 
S.  T.  B.  Queen's  College  1565,  S.T.P.  1575.  Nutt  matriculated  at  Peterhouse 
1568;  he  was  A.B.  1573,  A.M.  1577.  For  this  information,  as  well  as  the  uni- 
versity record  of  Henry  and  Thomas  Pickering  (the  editor  of  Perkins's  Discourse), 
I  am  indebted  to  the  kindness  of  the  Registrary,  Dr.  J.  N.  Keynes,  and  the  good 
offices  of  Professor  Skeat. 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  35 

uncles,  was  at  Christ's  College  when  the  fits  began.100  He 
not  only  visited  the  Throckmortons  in  1590,  "being  then 
a  Scholler  of  Cambridge,"  and  stayed  there  three  or  four 
days,  but  he  took  two  other  scholars  of  his  acquaintance  to 
see  the  witch,  and  we  have  a  pretty  full  account  of  the  inter- 
view. Mr.  Pickering  was  fully  persuaded  that  Goody 
Samuel  was  a  witch.  Being  somewhat  moved,  he  told  her 
that  "there  was  no  way  to  preuent  the  iudgements  of  God, 
but  by  her  confession  and  repentance :  which  if  she  did  not 
in  time,  he  hoped  one  day  to  see  her  burned  at  a  stake,  and 
he  himselfe  would  bring  fire  and  wood,  and  the  children  should 
bio  we  the  coales."  101  This  Mr.  Henry  Pickering  became, 
in  1597,  rector  of  Aldwincle  All  Saints,  in  Northamptonshire. 
His  daughter  Mary  married  Erasmus  Dryden  (son  of  Sir 
Erasmus),  and  became  the  mother  of  the  illustrious  poet, 
who  was  born  at  the  parsonage  house  of  Aldwincle  All  Saints 
in  1631.102  Thus  it  appears  that  the  five  tormented  Throck- 
morton girls  were  first  cousins  of  the  poet's  mother,  and  that 
Mrs.  Throckmorton  was  his  great-aunt.  We  note  that 
William  Perkins,  whose  treatise  on  witchcraft  we  have  exam- 
ined, was  a  fellow  of  Christ's  College  during  most  of  the  time 
when  these  fits  were  going  on.  It  is  curious,  too,  that  the 
publisher  of  Perkins's  posthumous  treatise  (another  Cam- 
bridge man)  was  Thomas  Pickering,103  doubtless  a  relative, 
though  we  cannot  be  certain  of  that.  Both  Sir  Henry  Crom- 
well and  his  son  Oliver  had  been  at  the  university. 

The  Warboys  case,  then,  demonstrably  produced  a  deep 

100  Henry  Pickering  was  a  younger  son  of  Sir  Gilbert  Pickering,  Knight,  of 
Tichmarsh,  Northamptonshire.  He  matriculated  at  Christ's  College,  as  a  Pensioner, 
March  16.  1582-3,  was  A.B.  1586,  A.M.  1590,  and  incorporated  at  Oxford  1593 
(see  note  99,  above). 

101  Witches  of  Warboys,  sig.  E3. 

102  The  year  when  Pickering  became  rector  of  Aldwincle  All  Saints,  and  the 
date  of  his  death  (1637,  aged  75),  were  first  correctly  given  (from  his  tombstone) 
by  Mr.  W.  D.  Christie  in  the  Globe  Edition  of  Dryden's  Poetical  Works,  1870,  p. 
xvi.,  note  f- 

103  Thomas  Pickering  was  admitted  at  Emmanuel  College  as  a  Pensioner  in  1589. 
He  was  A.B.  1592,  A.M.  and  Fellow  1596,  B.D.  1603.  He  became  Vicar  of  Finch- 
ingfield,  Essex,  March  9,  1605-6,  and  died  there  in  1625.  For  these  facts  I  am 
indebted  to  the  Registrary  of  the  University,  Dr.  J.  N.  Keynes,  and  to  Mr.  J.  B. 
Peace,  Bursar  of  Emmanuel.  His  marriage  license  was  issued  May  4,  1611; 
his  will  was  proved  1627,  and  administration  was  granted  March  13,  1625-6 
(Transactions  of  the  Essex  Archaeological  Society,  New  Series,  6.  299). 


36        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

and  lasting  impression  on;  the  class  that  made  laws.  The 
gentlemen  concerned  werejidt  ignorant  country  squires  in 
thejgmote  districts;  they  were  intelligent,  well-educated 
men,  in  close  contact  with  one  of  the  universities  and  with. 

thejapifaL 

Nor  was  the  impression  allowed  to  die  out.  It  was  per- 
petuated in  two  ways  —  by  a  remarkable  book  and  by  a 
permanent  foundation.  The  presiding  judge,  Edward  Fen- 
ner,  was  so  much  struck  by  what  he  had  seen  and  heard  (for 
the  children  had  their  fits  in  his  presence)  that  he  joined 
with  others  to  further  the  publication  of  a  narrative,  —  The 
Most  Strange  and  Admirable  Disco verie  of  the  Three  Witches 
of  Warboys,  —  which  was  printed  in  London  in  1593.  Full 
notes  had  been  kept  from  the  outset  (as  befitted  the  intelli- 
gence and  education  of  the  families  concerned)  and  these 
were  used  by  the  author.  This  is  no  mere  catchpenny  tract. 
It  is  a  careful  and  temperate  report  of  the  girls'  malady  from 
first  to  last.  Nothing  comparable  to  it,  considered  as  a 
report  on  a  long-continued  case  of  epidemic  hysteria,  had 
ever  appeared  in  England.  The  details,  at  which  modern 
writers  on  witchcraft  are  wont  to  jeer,  are  no  more  ridiculous 
than  the  details  in  recent  and  esteemed  treatises  on  la  grande 
hystirie,  or  on  multiple  personality.  That  it  kept  the  War- 
boys  case  alive  long  after  the  accession  of  James  I.  is  certain, 
for  Dr.  John  Cotta,  in  1616  and  again  in  1624,  refers  to  the 
"Treatise  of  the  Witches  of  Warbozys"  as  authoritative.104 
He  had  no  doubt  whatever  that  the  Throckmorton  girls  were 
bewitched.105 

Finally,  Sir  Henry  Cromwell  took  effectual  measures  for 


104  Triall  of  Witch-craft,  1616,  p.  77. 

105  Samuel  Harsnet,  when  in  full  cry  after  Darrel,  did  not  venture  to  attack  the 
Warboys  case  directly.  True,  he  refers  slightingly  to  the  printed  narrative  as  a 
"silly  book,"  but  in  the  same  breath  he  suggests  that  one  of  Darrel's  patients  had 
taken  a  leaf  out  of  it.  And  Darrel,  in  replying,  taunts  Harsnet  with  not  daring  to 
assail  the  case  openly.  That  Mr.  Throckmorton's  children,  says  Darrel,  "were 
tormented  by  the  diuell,  even  5.  of  his  daughters,  it  is  notoriously  knowne,  and 
so  generally  receaued  for  truth,  as  the  Dis[coverer).  himselfe  [i.e.  Harsnet]  dareth  not 
deny  it,  though  fayne  he  would,  as  appeareth  by  his  nibling  at  them"  (Detection 
of  Harshnet,  1600,  p.  39;  cf.  pp.  20-22,  36,  40).  And  again,  he  does  not  hesitate 
to  declare  that  Harsnet  refrained  from  accusing  the  Throckmorton  girls  of  counter- 
feiting because  he  did  not  dare:  "He  thought  it  best  and  meet  for  his  safety 
becaus  they  were  the  children  of  an  Esquire,  not  to  say  so  in  plaine  tearmes"  (p.  21) . 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  37 

perpetuating  the  impression  made  by  the  long-continued 
phenomena,  the  trial,  and  the  book.  Certain  goods  and 
chattels  of  the  executed  felons  were  forfeited  to  him  as  lord 
of  the  manor.  He  disdained  to  keep  the  money  and  wished 
to  devote  it  to  public  uses.  Hence  he  established  an  annual 
sermon  at  Huntingdon,  to  be  delivered  by  a  fellow  of  his  own 
college,  Queen's  of  Cambridge.  The  appointee  was  to 
"preache  and  invaye  against  the  detestable  practice,  synne, 
and  offence  of  witchcraft,  inchantment,  charm,  and  sorcereye." 
The  sermon  was  maintained  until  1812,  but  toward  the  end 
its  burden  was  turned  to  the  explosion  of  the  old  belief.106 

And  now,  when  we  come  to  apply  what  we  have  observed 
of  the  state  of  educated  public  opinion  and  to  estimate  its 
presumable  effect  on  the  legislators  of  1604,  who  passed  the 
revised  statute,  we  are  struck  with  a  fact  which  all  investi- 
gators have  overlooked  or  ignored.  Two  gentlemen  were 
sitting  in  the  House  of  Commons  who  had  the  strongest  personal 
interest  in  the  Warboys  case.  The  Samuels  had  been  hanged, 
not  for  tormenting  the  Throckmorton  girls,107  but  for  be- 
witching Lady  Cromwell  to  death.  As  we  run  our  eye  down 
the  list  of  Members  of  Parliament,  it  is  arrested  by  two 
names,  —  Sir  Oliver  Cromwell  and  Henry  Cromwell,  —  one 
the  member  for  the  County  of  Huntingdon,  the  other  for 
the  borough.  These  were  sons  of  that  Sir  Henry  whose  wife 
had  died  (as  all  believed)  from  Mother  Samuel's  arts,  and 
who  had  founded  a  sermon  in  perpetual  memory  of  the 
murder. 

Both  Sir  Oliver  and  Henry  Cromwell  might  therefore  be 
presumed  to  have  an  effective  knowledge  of  the  case.  But 
we  are  not  left  to  conjecture.  Their  uncle,  Francis  Crom- 
well, was  one  of  the  justices  to  whom  Goody  Samuel  con- 
fessed.108 Mr.  Henry  Cromwell  himself  had  visited  the 
Throckmorton  house  with  one  of  Sir  Henry's  men  and  had 
observed  two  of  the  girls  in  their  fits.109  This  was  in  1593, 
shortly  before  the  actual  trial,  and  after  the  girls  had  begun 
to  accuse  the  Samuels  of  Lady  Cromwell's  murder.     As  for 

106  J.  H  Gray,  Queen's  College,  1899,  pp.  128-129. 

107  That  offence,  under  the  Elizabethan  statute,  was  punishable  only  by  im- 
prisonment and  the  pillory,  for  none  of  the  girls  had  died. 

108  Sig.  I  r°;   cf.  sig.  P  2  v°.  109  Sig.  N3. 


38        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

Sir  Oliver,  his  wife  had  accompanied  her  mother-in-law  on 
the  fatal  visit  to  the  Throckmortons,  and  had  been  present 
at  her  interview  with  Goody  Samuel.  That  night,  Lady 
Cromwell  was  "strangly  tormented  in  her  sleep,  by  a  cat 
(as  she  imagined)  which  mother  Samuel  had  sent  vnto  her." 
Mistress  Oliver  Cromwell  was  sleeping  in  the  same  bed 
(her  husband  being  from  home),  and  was  awakened  by  the 
"strugling  and  striuing  of  the  Lady  .  .  .  and  mournfull 
noise,  which  shee  made  speaking  to  the  cat,  and  to  mother 
Samuel."  Mistress  Oliver  roused  her  mother-in-law,  who 
told  her  all  about  her  dream.  Lady  Cromwell  had  no  more 
sleep  that  night,  and  soon  after  sickened,  as  already  told.110 
We  may  be  sure  that  when  Mr.  Oliver  Cromwell  returned,  he 
was  put  in  full  possession  of  both  ladies'  experiences.  Surely 
neither  Sir  Oliver  Cromwell  nor  his  brother  stood  in  need  of 
instruction  in  the  witch  dogma  from  James  I.,  or  required 
any  royal  influence  to  persuade  them  to  vote  for  the  statute 
of  1604. 

Clt  is  worth  while  to  follow  the  clue  a  little  farther,  and  to 
glance  at  the  parliamentary  history  of  the  statute.  Most 
writers  have  been  quite  innocent  of  any  knowledge  that  it 
even  had  such  a  history.  Yet  there  it  stands  in  the  Lords' 
and  Commons'  Journals,  and  an  instructive  history  it  is. 

The  bill  originated  in  the  House  of  Lordsf  The  first  read^, 
ing  took  place  on  March  27.  1604.  On  the  29th  it _wa.s_rea.d 
a  second  time  and  referred  to  a.  committee  consisting  of  six 
earls,  sixteen  other  peers,  and  twelve  bishops.  The  com- 
mittee was  to  have  the  most  expert  advice  conceivable,  and 
to  that  end  an  imposing  array  of  legal  talent,  learning, 
and  experience  was  requested  "to  attend  the  Lords"  in 
their  deliberations.  Here  is  the  list:  the  Chief  Justice  of 
Common  Pleas  (Anderson),  the  Chief  Baron  of  the  Ex- 
chequer (Sir  William  Peryam),  two  justices  of  the  King's 
Bench  (Sir  Christopher  Yelverton  and  David  Williams), 
Serjeant  Croke,  the  Attorney-General  (Coke),  and  Sir  John 
Tindall,  a  distinguished  ecclesiastical  lawyer.  Nor  was  all 
this  a  mere  flourish.  The  committee  and  its  eminent  coun- 
sel took  their  duties  seriously.     They  rejected  the  draft  that 

110  Sig.  E  3  r°. 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  39 

had  been  referred  to  them,  and,  on  the  2d  of  April,  the  com- 
mittee reported  a  new  bill,  "framed  by  the  committee." 
This  was  brought  into  the  Lords  by  the  Earl  of  Northumber- 
land. It  received  certain  amendments,  and,  on  May  8th, 
ajteMJTe^jjjjrd  reading,  was  passed  and  sent  to  the  House  of 
Commons.  Here,  too,  there  was  careful  deliberation.  On 
May  11th  the  bill  had  its  first  reading ;  and  on  the  26th  it  was_ 
read  a  second  time  and  referred  to  a  committee  of  seventeen^, 
including  the  Recorder  of  London  and  two  serjeants-at-law 
(Hobart  and  Shirley),  which  was  directed  to  meet  on  the 
first  of  June  in  the  Middle  Temple  Hall.  Jii-the-Sth^  Sir- 
Thomas  RidgejKay*_iox_l]i£_c^mm 

<<with_alteraticms.^an4LumeIliments.',  On  June  7th  it  came 
iUL_fox  Ji§^ird„xeadhig^  was_passed  _as_  am  en  d  edy  -  an  d  .on 
the  9th  was„sent  up  to  the  Lords . m 

This  bare  statement  of  recorded  facts  disposes  of  the  myth 
that  King  James  was  the  author  or  the  father  of  the  statute 
which  has  so  long  been  associated  with  his  name  and  fame. 
Whether  the  measure  was  good  or  bad,  —  whether  its  re- 
sults were  great  or  small,  —  the  Lords  and  Commons  of  ^  ^ 
En^Iandj^and,  not  the  king,  must  shoulder,  Jihe  responsi- 
J^lity,112  And  it  is  in  complete  accord  with  what  we  should 
expect  from  the  caution  with  which  both  houses  proceeded 
and  the  care  which  their  committees  took,  that  the  statute, 
whenJfoaUxiLleil  the  hands  of  Parliament^ _ was  noj^really^ 
a  new  law  at  all,  but  simply  a  modification  and  extension 
of^  the,  statute  of  Elizabeth. 

Two  names  on  the  Lords'  Committee  catch  the  eye  imme- 
diately, —  the  Earl  of  Derby  and  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln. 
Ten  years  before,  in  1594,  a  short  time  after  the  witches  of 
Warboys  were  hanged,  Ferdinando,  fifth  Earl  of  Derby,  had 
died  at  Latham  after  a  ten  days'  illness.  The  physicians 
(he  had  four)  ascribed  his  disease  to  a  surfeit  combined  with 

m  Lords'  Journals,  1.  267,  269,  271,  272,  293,  294,  316;  Commons'  Journals, 
1.  204,  207,  227,  232,  234,  236. 

112  The  object  of  the  law  was  not  to  multiply  culprits,  but  to  deter  men  from  com- 
mitting the  crime.  The  idea  that  very  great  severity  defeats  its  object  did  not  then 
obtain  among  penologists.  Take  an  example  of  the  temper  of  intelligent  men  in 
this  regard.  In  May,  1604,  William  Clopton  writes  to  Timothy  Hutton :  —  "  There 
is  an  act  passed  to  take  away  the  clergie  from  stealers  of  sheep  and  oxen,  which  will 
do  much  good"  (Hutton  Correspondence,  Surtees  Society,  1843,  p.  195). 


40        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

over-exertion.  But  there  were  grave  suspicions  of  sorcery. 
The  earl  had  dreamed  strange  dreams;  he  had  been 
"crossed"  by  an  apparition  "with  a  gastly  and  threatning 
countenance."  An  image  of  wax  was  discovered  in  his 
bedroom.  "A  homely  Woman,  about  the  age  of  fifty  yeeres, 
was  found  mumbling  in  a  corner  of  his  honours  Chamber, 
but  what  God  knoweth."  Three  other  suspected  witches 
appear  in  the  case  at  divers  times  and  in  sundry  manners. 
The  earl  himself  "cryed  out  that  the  Doctors  laboured  in 
vaine,  because  hee  was  certainely  bewitched."  In  the  end, 
the  opinion  seems  to  have  prevailed  that  he  died  from  natural 
causes.113  But  it  would  be  extraordinary  if  all  the  circum- 
stances had  not  made  a  profound  impression  on  his  younger 
brother,  who  succeeded  him,  and  this  is  the  Earl  of  Derby 
whom  we  have  noted  in  the  Lords'  Committee  on  the  bill. 
Another  person  who  must  also  have  been  deeply  affected 
by  these  strange  happenings  was  the  Bishop  of  Chester, 
who  attended  the  dying  man.  This  was  Dr.  William  Chader- 
ton,  who  was  translated  to  Lincoln  in  1594,  and  he,  too,  sat  in 
the  Lords'  Committee. 

Henry  Percy,  Earl  of  Northumberland,  who  reported  the 
second  draft  from  the  committee,  was  a  famous  student  of 
the  occult  sciences  and  was  popularly  known  as  "the  Wizard 
Earl."  Like  Dr.  Dee,  he  believed  that  his  own  investiga- 
tions were  free  from  the  taint  of  diabolism,  but,  like  Dee, 
he  must  also  have  felt  convinced  that  there  were  others  who 
did  traffic  with  the  infernal  powers,  and  that  such  persons 
deserved  punishment. 

Henry  Howard,  Earl  of  Northampton,  another  member  of 
the  Lords'  Committee,  had  the  reputation  of  being  the  most 
learned  of  the  peers.  He  was  a  firm  believer  in  the  actuality 
of  communication  between  mortals  and  wicked  spirits. 
In  his  erudite  Defensative  against  the  Poyson  of  Supposed 
Prophecies,  written  in  1582  and  1583,  he  declared  that  one 
of  the  means  "whereby  the  contagion  of  vnlawfull  Prophesies 
is  conueyed  into  the  mindes  of  mortall  men,  is  conference 
with  damned  Spirits  or  Familiars,  as  commonly  we  call 
them."  114    And  he  unhesitatingly  ascribed  the  clairvoyance 

m  Stow,  Chronicle,  ed.  Howe,  1631,  pp.  767-768.  *"  Ed.  1620,  p.  81. 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  41 

of  cunning  men  and  women  to  such  revelations,  —  taking 
as  an  example  their  disclosure  of  the  thief  in  a  case  of  cutting 
a  purse.115 

Let  us  turn  to  the  Commons'  Committee.  Here  we  find 
several  interesting  names.  Sir  Roger  Aston  had  been  Eng- 
lish resident  in  Scotland.  This  may  be  held  to  be  a  two- 
edged  argument,  but  we  do  not  need  it,  for  there  are  plenty 
more.  Two  of  the  most  notoriously  witch-haunted  counties 
in  England  were  Lancaster  and  Essex.  Now,  Lancashire 
was  represented  on  the  committee  by  Sir  Richard  Moly- 
neux  of  Sefton.  As  for  Essex,  not  only  was  the  county  mem- 
ber, Sir  Francis  Barrington,  on  the  committee,  but  also  Sir 
Robert  Wroth,  who  lived  principally  at  Loughton  Hall,  in 
Essex.  He  was  a  man  of  forty-odd  when  Brian  Darcey's 
great  St.  Osyth  cases  were  tried  and  ten  witches  were  hanged 
at  Chelmsford  in  that  county.  Other  executions  at  Chelms- 
ford took  place  in  1579  116  and  1589.117  Giffard,  we  remem- 
ber, was  an  Essex  preacher,  and  his  Dialogue,  published  in 
1593  and  reissued  in  1603,  had  urged  the  sharpening  of  the 
statute  in  the  precise  direction  which  this  parliament  took. 
Wroth  had  large  possessions  in  Middlesex  and  sat  for  that 
county.118  Now  of  the  twenty-nine  years  from  1573  to 
1601  there  were  witch-records  for  thirteen.     Serjeant   Ho- 

115  P.  85.  Bishop  Bancroft  and  the  Earl  of  Shrewsbury  were  on  the  Lords'  Commit- 
tee. The  bishop  had  been  the  leading  spirit  in  the  prosecution  of  Darrel,  and  the  earl 
had  been  present  at  the  trial.  But  this  is  no  reason  why  they  should  have  opposed 
the  statute.  As  we  have  seen,  Bancroft  was  a  prosecutor  of  exorcists,  not  a  pro- 
tector of  alleged  witches.  In  the  Synod  called  by  James  (which  sat  concurrently 
with  Parliament,  and  broke  up  on  July  9,  1604,  two  days  after  Parliament  rose) 
a  canon  (written  by  Bancroft)  was  adopted,  forbidding  clergymen,  without  proper 
license,  "to  attempt  upon  any  pretence  whatsoever,  eyther  of  Possession  or 
Obsession,  by  fasting,  and  prayers  to  cast  out  any  Devill  or  Devills"  (Canon  72, 
Constitutions  and  Canons  of  the  Synod  of  1603,  ed.  1633;  cf.  J.  W.  Joyce,  Eng- 
land's Sacred  Synods,  1853,  pp.  620  ff . ;  Cardwell,  Synodalia,  2.  583  ff.).  This 
canon  was  in  no  wise  inconsistent  with  the  statute,  nor  can  it  have  been  so  regarded 
by  the  twelve  bishops  who  sat  on  the  Lords'  Committee.  At  all  events,  James  I. 
showed  himself  quite  as  skeptical  as  Bancroft  in  cases  of  alleged  possession  (see 
pp.  47  ff.,  below). 

116  Collier,  2  Notes  and  Queries,  12.  301 ;  Arber,  Stationers'  Register,  2.  352, 
358. 

117  Arber,  2.  525;  cf.  Collier,  as  above,  p.  301. 

118  On  the  Wroth  family  see  a  series  of  papers  by  Mr.  W.  C.  Waller  in  the  Trans- 
actions of  the  Essex  Archaeological  Society,  New  Series,  8.  145  ff.,  345  ff. ;  9.  1  ff. 
On  Sir  Robert  Wroth  (1540-1606)  see  especially  8. 150  ff.  His  son  Robert  (1576- 
1614,  knighted  in  1603)  was  one  of  Ben  Jonson's  patrons  (see  8.  156  ff.). 


42        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

bart  (later  Sir  Henry)  was  likewise  a  committeeman.  What 
he  thought  of  witchcraft  we  may  infer  from  his  conduct  when 
Lord  Chief  Baron  of  the  Exchequer  at  the  trial  of  Margaret 
and  Philip  (i.e.  Philippa)  Flower,  who  were  executed  in 
1619  for  bewitching  to  death  two  sons  of  the  Earl  of  Rut- 
land.119 Nobody  will  suggest  that  he  learned  his  creed  from 
James  I.  If  any  should  be  so  absurd,  we  may  balance  him 
by  Sir  Humphrey  Winch,  also  an  M.P.,  though  not  on  the 
committee,  who,  in  1619,  incurred  the  wrath  of  the  king  by 
condemning  nine  witches  to  death  in  a  case  which  James 
himself  shortly  after  exposed  as  an  imposture.  We  shall 
return  to  this  in  a  moment.120  There  was  a  Mr.  Throck- 
morton on  the  committee.  This  was  John  Throckmorton, 
M.P.  for  Gloucestershire.  The  Throckmortons  of  that  coun- 
ty were  related  to  those  of  Huntingdonshire.  It  is  likely 
that  Mr.  John  had  felt  some  share  of  the  universal  interest 
roused  by  the  experiences  of  his  distant  kinswomen  of  War- 
boys.  The  Recorder  of  London  also  sat  on  the  Commons' 
Committee.  This  was  Henry  Montagu,121  afterwards  Chief 
Justice  of  the  King's  Bench  (1616)  and  Earl  of  Manchester 
(1626).  He  was  of  Christ's  College,  Cambridge,  where  he 
had  been  a  younger  contemporary  of  William  Perkins,  whose 
strong  advocacy  of  more  stringent  laws  against  witchcraft 
we  have  already  noted.  Later,  he  was  a  patron  of  Thomas 
Cooper,  whose  book  about  witchcraft  we  have  examined.122 
James  Montagu,  who  preached  Perkins's  funeral  sermon, 
was  his  younger  brother.123  Their  father,  Sir  Edward  Mon- 
tagu, was  likewise  on  the  Commons'  Committee.  Can  there 
be  any  doubt  of  the  opinions  of  this  family  on  the  subject 
of  witchcraft  ?  Must  we  look  to  James  I.  as  the  source  of 
their  views  ?  Finally,  we  note  with  peculiar  interest  that 
the  bill  was  reported,  with  amendments,  from  the  committee 
to  the  House  by  Sir  Thomas  Ridgeway,  of  Devon,  before 
whom,  in  1601  and  1602,  were  taken  an  extraordinary  series 

119  See  pp.  59-60,  below.  m  See  pp.  57-59,  below. 

m  He  became  Recorder  in  1603  (Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1603- 
1610,  pp.  10,  14 ;  cf .  Foss,  Judges  of  England,  6.  167  ff. ;  Peile,  Biographical  Regis- 
ter of  Christ's  College,  1910,  1.  173). 

m  Life  of  Cooper  in  Dictionary  of  National  Biography. 

m  See  p.  21,  above.  Cf.  Peile,  Biographical  Register  of  Christ's  College,  1910, 
1.  181. 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  43 

of  examinations  accusing  the  Trevisard  family  of  witch- 
craft.124 

It  is  time  to  study  the  advisory  board  of  legal  experts 
who  were  attached  to  the  Lords'  Committee  on  this  most 
earnestly  debated  bill.  Three  of  these  attract  our  particular 
attention,  Chief  Justice  Anderson,  Serjeant  Croke,  and  Coke, 
then  Attorney-General. 

Sir  Edmund  Anderson  had  been  chief  justice  for  twenty- 
two  years.  He  knew  all  about  the  workings  of  the  Eliza- 
bethan statute.  At  first  sight  one  might  think  him  opposed 
to  witch  prosecution,  for  he  had  taken  a  leading  part  in 
"exposing*'  Darrel,  and  he  had  a  lively  sense  of  the  danger 
of  popular  excitement  to  the  innocent  in  such  matters.  But 
sc  moment's  thought  will  set  us  right.  Perkins  and  Giffard 
/and  Dr.  Cotta  —  nay,  James  himself,  as  we  shall  see  pres- 
ently 125  —  thought  that  judges  ought  to  be  very  careful 
fto  sift  the  evidence  and  protect  the  innocent,  but  none  of 
them  doubted  that  a  witch  whose  guilt  was  proved  ought  to 
be  condemned.  So  the  majority  of  civilized  men  to-day 
believe  in  the  wisdom  and  righteousness  of  the  death  pen- 
alty for  a  certain  grade  of  crime,  but  all  are  agreed  that  care 
should  be  taken  to  clear  the  innocent.  An  instructive  ex- 
ample of  the  distinction  that  we  must  make  may  be  seen  in 
the  person  of  Sir  Edward  Bromley.  At  the  same  assizes, 
in  1612,  Bromley  presided  over  two  sets  of  witch-trials,  those 
of  the  Pendle  witches  and  those  of  the  witches  of  Salmes- 
bury.  In  the  Pendle  cases,  he  could  not  doubt  the  evidence, 
and  he  condemned  ten  to  death  with  complete  assurance  that 
he  was  doing  right.  Cotta,  himself,  in  1616,  speaks  of  the 
evidence  in  these  cases  with  regard  to  sorcery  by  means  of 
"pictures  of  waxe  "  as  "proued  "  by  "testimonies  beyond 
exception."  126  In  the  Salmesbury  cases,  on  the  contrary, 
Bromley  saw  reason  to  suspect  the  veracity  of  the  chief  wit- 
ness for  the  prosecution,  and  followed  up  the  clue  so  well  that 
the  defendants  were  acquitted.127  Students  of  demonology 
will  not  forget  that  modern  writers  have  seen  fit  to  gird  at 
Bromley,  not  only  for  his  supposed  cruelty  and  superstition 

124  See  p.  17,  above.  U8  See  pp.  48,  53,  58,  63-64,  below. 

126  Triall  of  Witch-craft,  p.  90. 

127  Potts,  Wonderfull  Discoverie,  1613,  sigs.  K3-N2. 


44        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

in  condemning  the  witches  of  Pendle,  but  also  —  strange  to 
say  —  for  the  ground  on  which  he  first  entertained  the  sus- 
picion that  led  to  the  acquittal  of  the  other  group.  But  it 
is  hard  to  satisfy  modern  writers  on  witchcraft,  who  insist  on 
censuring  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  century  on  a  basis 
of  modern  rationalism.  It  is  quite  certain  that  if  some  of 
those  who  now  sit  in  judgment  on  the  witch-prosecutors  had 
been  witch-judges,  no  defendant  would  ever  have  escaped. 

But  we  must  return  to  Chief  Justice  Anderson,  who,  as 
well  as  Sir  John  Croke,  sat  on  the  committee  of  advisers  to 
the  Lords.  Anderson  and  Croke  had  been  associated,  in 
1603,  in  the  affair  of  Mary  Glover,  which  we  have  already 
considered.  This  happened  before  the  accession  of  James. 
Croke  appears  therein  as  a  devout  believer  in  both  demoni- 
acal possession  and  witchcraft,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  Anderson  was  in  any  way  dissatisfied  with  his  pro- 
ceedings.128 

Now  for  Coke,  the  Attorney  General.  There  is  a  new 
provision  in  the  statute  of  1604  (not  found  in  the  Elizabethan 
law)  imposing  the  death  penalty  on  any  one  who  shall  "take 
up  any  dead  man,  woman,  or  child  out  of  his,  her,  or  theire 
grave,  or  any  other  place  where  the  dead  bodie  resteth,  or 
the  skin,  bone,  or  any  other  parte  of  any  dead  person,  to  be 
imployed  or  used  in  any  manner  of  Witchcrafte,  Sorcerie, 
Charme,  or  Inchantment.,,  Hutchinson  129  conjectured  that 
this  provision  was  due  to  King  James,  noting  that  such 
ghoulish  outrages  were  a  part  of  the  confession  of  Agnes 
Sampson,  one  of  the  first  Scottish  witches  examined  in  the 
king's  presence  in  1590.130  I  am  willing  to  add  to  this  guess 
whatever  support  may  be  derived  from  the  fact  that  the 
king,  in  his  Dsemonologie,  more  than  once  adverts  to  the 
witches'  habit  of  "joynting,"  or  dismembering,  corpses.  m 
But,  when  all  is  said  and  done,  this  is  a  poor  refuge,  in  view 
of  what  now  appears  to  be  the  history  of  the  statute,  es- 
pecially when  one  remembers  that  the  use  of  the  dead  for 
purposes  of  sorcery  dates,  not  from  the  confession  of  Agnes 

128  See  p.  29,  above.  u»  P.  179. 

130  See  Pitcaira,  Criminal  Trials,  1.  218,  233,  237,  and  especially  239  (cf .  2.  478) ; 
Newes  from  Scotland,  Sig.  B3. 

131  Ed.  1603,  pp.  43,  58. 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  45 

Sampson,  but  from  the ' '  backward  and  abysm  of  time . ' '  The 
lawmakers,  cleric  or  lay,  did  not  learn  of  this  habit  from  King 
James,  unless  they  were  so  ignorant  as  never  to  have  heard 
of  Lucan's  Erichtho,132  whom  Marston  actually  brought  upon 
the  stage  at  about  this  very  time  in  a  tragedy  which  contains 
a  speech,  in  description  of  the  sorceress,  that  out-Lucans 
Lucan.1^3  But  we  need  not  appeal  to  the  classics.  Sir 
Edward  Kelley,  far-famed  as  Dr.  Dee's  skryer  in  crystallo- 
mancy,  had  already  emulated  Erichtho.  Years  before, 
"vpon  a  certaine  night,  in  the  Parke  of  Walton  in  le  Dale, 
in  the  county  of  Lancaster,  with  one  Paul  Waring,"  he  had 
"inuocated  some  one  of  the  inf email  regiment,  to  know  cer- 
taine passages  in  the  life,  as  also  what  might  bee  knowne 
by  the  deuils  foresight,  of  the  manner  and  time  of  the  death 
of  a  noble  young  Gentleman,  as  then  in  his  wardship." 
The  black  rites  finished,  Kelley  learned  of  the  gentleman's 
servant  about  a  poor  man's  corpse  that  had  been  buried  in  a 
neighboring  churchyard  that  very  day.  "Hee  and  the  said 
Waring  intreated  this  foresaid  seruant,  to  go  with  them  to 
the  graue."  The  servant  complied,  "and  withall  did  helpe 
them  to  digge  up  the  carcase  of  the  poor  caitiffe,  whom  by 
their  incantations,  they  made  him  (or  rather  some  euill 
spiritt  through  his  Organs)  to  speake,  who  deliuered  strange 
predictions  concerning  the  said  Gentleman."  All  that  we 
know  of  the  prodigious  Kelley  inclines  us  to  credit  him  with 
an  attempt  at  necromancy  on  this  occasion.  Weever,  who 
told  the  tale  in  1631,  had  it  from  the  servant  who  was  present, 
as  well  as  from  the  young  gentleman  to  whom  the  servant 
had  revealed  the  affair.134  It  is  safe  to  say  that  the  crime 
of  violating  graves  was  as  common  in  England  as  in  Scotland. 
It  surely  was  an  offence  quite  as  worthy  of  the  gallows  as 
sheep-stealing,  or  theft  above  the  value  of  twelvepence.  And 
it  was  natural  enough  to  insert  a  clause  to  cover  it  in  the 
revised  law.  Now  Coke  was  just  the  man  to  do  this,  for  he 
knew  of  a  fourteenth-century  case  which  showed  that  the  law 


132  Pharsalia,  vi.,  507  ff. 

133  Sophonisba,  act  iv.,  scene  1,  vv.  99-125  (Works,  ed.  Bullen,  2.  290-291). 

134  John  Weever,  Ancient  Funerall  Monuments,  1631,  pp.  45-46.  Cf.  Reginald 
Scot,  bk.  xv.,  chaps.  8,  17  (ed.  1584,  pp.  401  ff.,  423  ff.) ;  Baines,  History  of  Lan- 
cashire, ed.  Harland,  1.  199. 


46        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

was  imperfect  in  this  very  point,  and  he  reports  the  occur- 
rence in  his  Institutes,  in  commenting  on  this  provision  in 
the  statute  of  1604. 

A  man  was  taken  in  Southwark  with  a  head  and  a  face  of  a  dead  man, 
and  with  a  book  of  sorcery  in  his  male,  and  was  brought  into  the  king's 
bench  before  Sir  John  Knevett 135  then  chief  justice :  but  seeing  no  in- 
dictment was  against  him,  the  clerks  did  swear  him,  that  from  thence- 
forth he  should  not  be  a  sorcerer,  and  was  delivered  out  of  prison,  and  the 
head  of  the  dead  man  and  the  book  of  sorcery  were  burnt  at  Tuthill  at  the 
costs  of  the  prisoner.  So  as  the  head  and  his  book  of  sorcery  had  the  same 
punishment,  that  the  sorcerer  should  have  had  by  the  ancient  law,  if  he 
had  by  his  sorcery  praied  in  aid  of  the  devil.136 

Who  was  so  likely  as  Coke  to  instruct  the  Lords'  Com- 
mittee as  to  the  defect  in  the  former  statute  in  this  regard  ? 
At  all  events,  his  exposition  of  the  statute  of  1604  shows 
how  thoroughly  he  believed  in  witchcraft,  and  leaves  no 
doubt  as  to  the  general  bearing  of  whatever  advice  he  gave 
the  committee.  Nor  need  we  quote  his  celebrated  charge 
to  the  jury  in  Mrs.  Turner's  trial  for  the  murder  of  Overbury, 
as  we  might  otherwise  be  tempted  to  do.137  Among  the 
magical  exhibits  at  this  trial  was  a  parchment  on  which 
"were  written  all  the  names  of  the  holy  Trinity;  as  also  a 
figure  in  which  was  written  this  word  Corpus,  and  upon  the 
parchment  was  fastned  a  little  piece  of  the  shin  of  a  man."  138 
This  was,  it  appears,  a  charm  of  Forman's.  He  certainly 
did  not  import  it  from  Scotland  ! 139 

CLthink  we  may  now  regard  the  following  propositions  as 
proved:  (1)  The  last  twenty  years  of  Elizabeth's  reign 
were  a  time  of  intense  and  continuous  excitement  in  the  mat- 
ter of  witchcraft,  with  repeated  trials  and  a  good  many 
executions.  (2)  The  doctrine  was  not  dying  out  when  James 
came  to  the  throne.  It  was  held  with  great  tenacity,  not 
only  by  the  masses,  but  by  a  vast  majority  of  the  educated 

136  Sir  John  Knyvet  was  appointed  Chief  Justice  of  the  King's  Bench  in  1357  and 
Lord  Chancellor  in  1372  (Campbell,  Lord  Chancellors,  1846,  1.  267-268). 

136  Coke's  Institutes,  Third  Part,  cap.  6.  See  Gentleman's  Magazine,  1829, 
Part  ii.,  99.  515. 

137  Truth  Brought  to  Light  by  Time,  1651,  p.  140;  Egerton  Papers,  Camden 
Society,  pp.  472-473. 

138  Truth  Brought  to  Light,  p.  138. 

139  As  to  Forman,  see  pp.  49-50,  below. 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  47 

•:  4 
and  influential,  —  nobility,  country  gentry,  divines,  judges, 
and  citizens.  (3)  The  Elizabethan  law  was  generally  thought 
to  be  imperfect,  and  there  was  strong  pressure  for  new  legis- 
lation. (4)  The  statute  of  1604  was  carefully  considered  and 
fully  discussed.  It  was  not  a  king's  bill,  nor  was  it  rushed 
through  under  royal  whip  and  spur,  or  passed  out  of  com- 
plaisance to  the  new  sovereign.  There  is  no  evidence  that 
the  king  took  any  particular  interest  in  the  act.  It  reflected 
the  conscientious  opinions  of  both  Houses  of  Parliament.140 
(5)  It  followed  the  language  of  the  Elizabethan  statute  at 
almost  every  point,  though  somewhat  more  severe.  (6)  In 
its  practical  working,  however,  in  James's  time,  the  statute 
of  1604  was  not  appreciably  severer  than  the  Elizabethan 
law. 

But  the  case  against  James  I.  as  a  witch-hunter  during 
his  English  reign  is  not  merely  destitute  of  every  kind  of 
evidence  in  its  favor,  —  it  has  to  meet  an  overwhelming 
array  of  direct  proof  on  the  other  side.  And  to  this  evidence 
we  must  now  pass.     It  is  quite  conclusive. 

First,  we  will  consider  certain  pardons  that  are  matters 
of  record.  The  list  is  short  —  for  there  were  few  convictions 
—  but  it  is  significant.141 }  On  April  16,  1604,  when  the  new 
statute  was  still  under  deliberation,  Christian,  the  wife  of 
Thomas  Weech,  of  County  Norfolk,  received  the  royal  par- 
don for  witchcraft.142  In  1608,  Simon  Reade  was  pardoned 
for  conjuration  and  invocation  of  unclean  spirits.143  This 
case  is  mentioned  by  Ben  Jonson  in  The  Alchemist  (1610)  .144 
Reade  was  a  medical  practitioner  and  cunning  man  of  South- 
ward145    One  Toby  Mathew  of  London  had  lost  £37,  10 

140  No  doubt  James  approved  of  the  statute.  He  certainly  believed  in  witch- 
craft and  thought  that  proved  witches  ought  to  be  put  to  death.  In  the  Basilikon 
Doron,  addressed  to  Prince  Henry,  he  mentions  witchcraft  among  the  "horrible 
crymes  that  yee  are  bounde  in  Conscience  neuer  to  forgiue"  (1599,  Roxburghe 
Club  reprint,  p.  37 ;  London  edition  of  1603,  p.  31).  But  the  question  is  not  whether 
he  was  a  believer  in  the  actuality  of  such  offences,  but  whether  he  was  a  blind  and 
maniacal  persecutor  who  misled  the  English  nation,  to  its  everlasting  disgrace. 

141  Cf.  Inderwick,  Side-Lights  on  the  Stuarts,  2d.  ed.,  p.  150. 

142  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1603-1610,  p.  96. 

143  Calendar,  p.  406. 

144  Act  i.,  scene  2. 

145  Reade  stood  suit  with  the  College  of  Physicians  in  1602  for  practising  without 
a  license  and  was  cast,  as  Gifford  remarks  in  his  note  on  the  passage  in  The  Alche- 
mist.    In  the  pardon  he  is  styled  "in  medicinis  professor." 


48       ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

shillings,  by  theft,  and  Reade  invoked  three  devils  —  Hea- 
welon,  Faternon,  and  Cleveton  —  to  learn  the  name  of  the 
thief  and  recover  the  money.  There  were  several  seances,  — 
the  first  on  November  8,  1606,  the  others  before  the  10th  of 
the  following  January.146  Apparently  Mathew  blabbed, 
perhaps  because  the  devils  did  not  find  his  money  for  him. 
No  doubt  Reade,  when  he  saw  that  his  trickery  was  to  cost 
him  his  life,  confessed  that  the  conjuration  was  pure  hum- 
bug, and  so  was  pardoned.  In  1610,  Christian  Weech  re- 
ceived a  second  pardon,  this  time  for  the  murder  of  Mary 
Freeston  by  witchcraft.147  In  1611,  William  Bate,  "in- 
dicted twenty  years  since  for  practising  of  invocation  of 
spirits  for  finding  treasure,"  was  pardoned.148  In  Bate's 
case  the  ground  is  expressly  stated,  —  the  evidence  was 
"found  weak."  Of  course  this  was  also  the  reason  for  royal 
clemency  in  the  other  three  cases.  We  have  precisely  the 
same  situation  that  confronts  us  in  Jane  Wenham's  case, 
in  1712,  when  the  judge  was  dissatisfied  with  the  verdict  of 
a  credulous  jury  and  saved  the  condemned  prisoner  in  the 
only  way  open  to  him,  then  as  now,  by  procuring  the  royal 

.J   a  pardom) 

Xbe  bearing  of  these  records  is  unmistakable.  They 
prove  both  that  James  was  no  bigoted  and  undiscriminating 
vp  v  witch-finder  and  witch-prosecutor,  and  tha>fthe  judges  tried 
to  get  at  the  truth  in  this  crime  as  in  others  J  Here,  then,  is 
the  place  to  quote  a  passage  from  Francis  Osborne,  with 
whom  King  James  was  no  favorite :  "What  his  judgment  was 

y^  vv  of  Witchcraft,  you  may  in  part  find  by  his  Treatise  on  that 
Subject,  and  Charge  he  gave  the  Judges,  to  be  circumspect 
in  condemning  those,  committed  by  ignorant  Justices,  for 
Diabolical  Compacts.  Nor  had  he  concluded  his  advice  in 
a  narrower  Circle  (as  I  have  heard)  than  the  denial  of  any 
such  Operations,  but  out  of  Reason  of  State :  and  to  gratify 
the  Church,  which  hath  in  no  Age,  thought  fit  to  explode  out 
of  the  Common  Peoples  Minds,  an  Apprehension  of  Witch- 
craft." 149     The  latter  part  of  this  dictum  may  pass  for  what 

148  The  pardon,  giving  these  details,  is  printed  in  Rymer's  Fcedera,  2d  edi- 
tion, 16.  666-667. 

147  Calendar,  1603-1610,  p.  598.  148  Calendar,  1611-1618,  p.  29. 

149  Essay  1,  Miscellaneous  Works,  11th  ed.F  1722,  1.  25. 


:< 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  /*1f9 


it  is  worth.  The  whole  passage  is  valuable  for  the  light  it 
throws  upon  the  king's  reputation  with  his  contemporaries. 
They  thought  him  skeptical  rather  than  credulous. 

There  is  a  close  relation  between  the  general  purport  of  Os- 
borne's testimony  and  the  attitude  of  James  with  regard  to  the 
curative  power  of  the  royal  touch.150  His  incredulity  on  this 
point  was  manifested  at  the  very  beginning  of  his  reign. 
"The  King,"  wrote  Scaramelli  to  the  Doge  of  Venice,  in  1603, 
shortly  before  the  coronation,  "says  that  neither  he  nor  any 
other  King  can  have  power  to  heal  scrofula,  for  the  age  of 
miracles  is  past,  and  God  alone  can  work  them.  However," 
adds  the  Venetian,  "he  will  have  the  full  ceremony  [sc.  of 
coronation,  anointing  included],  so  as  not  to  lose  this  pre- 
rogative [sc.  of  touching  for  the  king's  evil],  which  belongs 
to  the  Kings  of  England  as  Kings  of  France."  151  And  we 
know  that  he  actually  touched  for  the  evil  on  various  occa- 
sions, for  reasons  of  state,152  knowing  well  that  the  ceremony 
could  not  harm  the  sufferers  and  might  work  beneficially 
upon  them  through  the  imagination.  "He  was  a  King  in 
understanding,"  says  Arthur  Wilson,  "and  was  content  to 
have  his  Subjects  ignorant  in  many  things.  As  in  curing 
the  Kings-Evil,  which  he  knew  a  Device,  to  aggrandize  the 
Virtue  of  Kings,  when  Miracles  were  in  fashion ;  but  he  let 
the  World  believe  it,  though  he  smiled  at  it,  in  his  own 
Reason,  finding  the  strength  of  the  Imagination  a  more 
powerful  Agent  in  the  Cure,  than  the  Plasters  his  Chirurgions 
prescribed  for  the  Sore."  153 

Along  with  the  pardons  which  we  have  noted  may  be 
classed  the  toleration  which  James  extended  to  Forman  and 
Lambe  and  Dee.  This  is  a  curious  circumstance  which  has 
never  received  the  attention  it  deserves. 

Simon  Forman  was  undoubtedly  a  rascal.154  He  seems,  how- 
ever, to  have  been  a  likeable  fellow.  Lilly's  anecdote  of  his 
predicting  his  own  death  is  charming  and  proves  that  Forman 

150  See  Manly,  Macbeth,  1900,  pp.  xvi.-xviii. 

151  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Venetian,  1603-1607,  p.  44  (June  4,  1603). 

152  In  1604,  1608,  1610,  and  1617,  for  instance  (Calendar,  as  above,  1603-1607, 
p.  193;   1607-1610,  pp.  116,  465;  Eboracum,  1788,  1.  150). 

153  History  of  Great  Britain,  1653,  p.  289. 

154  See  Mr.  Lee's  life  of  Forman  in  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  19. 
438  ff. 


50        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

had  a  good  measure  of  bonhomie.155  It  also  goes  far  to  show- 
that  he  put  some  trust  in  his  own  occult  powers,  though  in 
the  main  he  must  have  been  a  charlatan.  Certainly  he 
passed  for  a  sorcerer.  For  years  he  made  a  public  profession 
of  necromancy  and  magic  at  Lambeth,  and  was  much  con- 
sulted by  the  ladies.  On  the  26th  of  June,  1603,  Forman 
was  licensed  by  the  University  of  Cambridge  to  practise 
medicine,  and  on  the  next  day  the  university  conferred  upon 
him  the  degree  of  M.D.  How  he  contrived  to  obtain  these 
certificates  of  professional  respectability  is  a  puzzle.156  King 
James  never  molested  Forman,  and  the  Doctor  died  peace- 
fully in  1611.  The  full  extent  of  his  rascality  did  not  come 
out  until  the  trial  of  Mrs.  Turner,  in  1615,  for  the  murder 
of  Overbury,157  but  that  makes  no  difference.  He  was  a 
notorious  conjuror,  and  it  would  have  been  easy  to  find  evi- 
dence during  his  life  that  would  have  hanged  him  a  hun- 
dred times.158 

Dr.  John  Lambe  was  in  the  same  kind  of  business  as  For- 
man but  was  even  less  reputable.  He  was  convicted  at  the 
Worcester  assizes  on  two  separate  indictments,  each  of  them 
for  a  capital  crime.  The  first  was  for  "wasting  and  con- 
suming" Thomas  Lord  Windsor  by  witchcraft;  the  second 
for  "  invoking  and  entertaining  "  evil  spirits.159  Sentence  was 
suspended,  and  Lambe  was  imprisoned  in  Worcester  Castle. 
Shortly  after,  he  was  removed  to  the  King's  Bench  in  Lon- 

155  William  Lilly,  History  of  his  Life  and  Times,  2d  ed.,  1715,  p.  16. 

166  Forman  was  twice  imprisoned,  at  the  instance  of  the  Royal  College  of 
Physicians,  as  an  unauthorized  and  ignorant  practitioner  (in  1595  and  1596).  In 
1601  he  was  again  complained  of.  In  1606  and  1607,  after  obtaining  his  Cambridge 
degree,  he  was  cited  to  appear  before  the  College,  but  refused  to  obey.  See  the 
records  in  the  8th  Report  of  the  Commission  on  Historical  MSS.,  Appendix,  Part  i., 
p.  228. 

157  Truth  Brought  to  Light  by  Time,  1651,  pp.  135-138;  Letter  from  Thomas 
Bone  to  Sir  John  Egerton,  November  9,  1615,  Egerton  Papers,  Camden  Society, 
pp.  470-473. 

158  See  Lilly,  pp.  12-16. 

169  The  indictments  are  printed  (in  translation)  in  A  Briefe  Description  of  the 
Notorious  Life  of  Iohn  Lambe,  Amsterdam,  1628,  pp.  3-6.  They  are  not  dated. 
The  bewitching  of  Lord  Windsor  is  stated  in  the  first  indictment  to  have  occurred 
on  December  16,  5  Jac.  I.  (i.e.  1607),  and  at  divers  times  afterward;  the  second 
indictment  dates  the  invocation  of  evil  spirits,  May  13,  6  Jac.  I.  (i.e.  1608),  and 
before  and  after.  Mr.  Sidney  Lee  (Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  32.  1)  shifts 
the  second  of  these  dates,  inadvertently,  from  the  offence  to  the  triaL  We  do  not, 
in  fact,  know  when  Lambe  was  tried,  but  it  was  before  1617. 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  51 

don,160  where  he  remained  a  long  time.  But  his  confine- 
ment was  not  rigorous.  He  lived  in  prison  quite  at  his  ease, 
receiving  his  patients  and  clients  and  doing  a  thriving  busi- 
ness as  physician  and  sorcerer.161  He  was  convicted  of  a 
rape  committed  while  in  confinement,162  but  the  chief  jus- 
tice reported  that  the  evidence  was  dubious,  and  in  1624 
he  was  pardoned.163  Soon  after,  he  was  released  from  cus- 
tody and  took  up  his  residence  near  the  Parliament  Hous§.164 
In  1628  he  met  his  death  at  the  hands  of  the  London  mob 
while  returning  from  a  play  at  the  Fortune.165  Lambe  was 
protected  by  Buckingham,  and  was  known  as  the  "Duke's 
devil." 166  .But  Buckingham  was  not  always  friendly.  Thus, 
in  1625,  the  duke  was  clamorous  against  him  on  account  of 
his  connection  with  Lady  Purbeck's  case.  "If  Lambe  " 
—  so  Buckingham  wrote  to  Attorney  General  Coventry  and 
Solicitor  General  Heath  —  "be  allowed  to  get  off  by  saying 
he  was  only  juggling  [i.e.  not  really  practising  sorcery],  .  .  . 
the  truth  can  never  be  known ;  Lambe  has  hitherto,  by  such 
shifts,  mocked  the  world  and  preserved  himself."  167  I  am 
far  from  maintaining  that  King  James's  indulgence  to  such 
scoundrels  as  Forman  and  Lambe  was  altogether  creditable 
to  him,  but  it  certainly  tends  to  prove  that  he  was  not  a  rabid 
prosecutor  of  witches  and  sorcerers.168 

160  Briefe  Description,  p.  14.  m  Pp.  14  ff. 

162  The  indictment  dates  the  offence  June  10,  21  Jac.  I.,  i.e.  1623  (Briefe  De- 
scription, p.  15).  The  conviction  was  in  1624  (Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Do- 
mestic, 1623-1625,  p.  485). 

163  Calendar,  1623-1625,  pp.  241,  243,  261,  266,  280. 

164  Briefe  Description,  1628,  p.  20. 

165  The  same,  pp.  20-21 ;  Rushworth,  Historical  Collections,  1.  618  (cf.  1.  391) ; 
Reign  of  Charles  I.,  continuation  of  Baker's  Chronicle,  ed.  1660,  p.  493 ;  Richard 
Smith,  Obituary,  in  Peck,  Desiderata  Curiosa,  Vol.  2.  Book  xiv,  p.  11;  Jupp, 
Historical  Account  of  the  Company  of  Carpenters,  1887,  pp.  84-85. 

166  Continuation  of  Baker's  Chronicle,  as  above,  p.  493.  Cf .  Fairholt,  Poems  and 
Songs  relating  to  George  Villiers,  Duke  of  Buckingham,  Percy  Society,  1850,  pp. 
xiv -xv.,  58-63,  65. 

167  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1623-1625,  p.  476.  Lady  Purbeck  had 
visited  Lambe  in  prison  to  procure  charms  from  him  (p.  474 ;  cf.  p.  497). 

168  Another  infamous  person  who  drove  a  thriving  trade  with  the  court  ladies 'was 
Mrs.  Mary  Woods,  who  practised  her  arts  at  Norwich,  and  removed  to  London 
in  1612.  She  was  involved  in  the  alleged  plot  of  the  Countess  of  Essex  to  poison 
the  Earl.  She  was  arrested  and  examined,  but  it  does  not  appear  that  she  was 
proceeded  against  under  the  statute  of  1604,  although  one  witness  declared  that  she 
professed  to  have  a  familiar  spirit.  Obviously  she  was  regarded  as  a  mere  charla- 
tan, yet  it  would  have  been  easy  enough  to  hang  her  for  a  witch  if  the  king  had 


52        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

Dr.  Dee  is  in  a  different  category,  for  he  was  a  profound 
scholar  and  a  man  of  a  sincere  and  simple  character,  whom  it 
would  be  profanation  to  class  with  Lambe  and  Forman.  Yet 
there  is  no  manner  of  doubt  that  his  occult  experiments 
(of  which  voluminous  documentary  evidence  is  still  extant) 
might  have  convicted  him  of  sorcery  on  literally  a  thousand 
counts.  His  sole  defence  would  have  been  that  he  was  in- 
voking and  consulting  good  angels,  not  demons,  but  the 
theologians  could  have  made  short  work  of  that  allegation. 
True,  Dee  had  been  examined  on  a  charge  of  witchcraft  in 
the  Star  Chamber  in  1555  and  acquitted.16^  But  his  subse- 
quent proceedings  were  enough  to  condemn  him,  and  he 
constantly  had  to  protest  against  the  aspersion  of  being  "a 
companion  of  Hell-hounds  and  conjuror  of  wicked  and 
damned  spirits,"  17°  and  "the  arche  coniurer  of  this  whole 
kingdom."  171  In  1583  the  mob  had  destroyed  his  library 
at  Mortlake.172  Anecdotes  that  descended  to  Aubrey  give 
ample  testimony  to  his  fame  as  a  conjuror.173  Dee  seems 
to  have  been  agitated  by  the  passage  of  the  statute  of  1604, 
for,  on  June  5,  of  that  year,  while  the  act  was  still  in  debate, 
he  petitioned  King  James  to  have  him  "tryed  and  cleared 
of  that  horrible  and  damnable,  and  to  him  most  grievous  and 
dammageable  sclaunder,  generally,  and  for  these  many  yeares 
last  past,  in  this  kingdom  raysed  and  continued,  by  report 
and  print  against  him,  namely,  that  he  is  or  hath  bin  a  con- 
jurer or  caller  or  invocator  of  divels."  174  No  attention  was 
paid  to  his  entreaty,  but  the  king  did  not  molest  him,  and 

favored  such  a  prosecution  (Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1611-1618,  pp. 
134,  161,  173,  183,  187;  Inquiry  into  the  Genuineness  of  a  Letter,  etc.,  pp.  17-19, 
Camden  Miscellany,  5;  Gardiner,  History  of  England,  1603-1642,  4th  ed., 
2.  169,  note  l). 

169  See  his  own  account  of  the  affair  in  his  Compendious  Rehearsall,  1592, 
printed  by  Crossley,  in  Autobiographical  Tracts  of  Dr.  John  Dee,  pp.  20-21  (Chet- 
ham  Miscellany,  1),  and  cf.  the  Necessary  Advertisement  prefixed  to  his  General 
and  Rare  Memorials  pertayning  to  the  Perfect  Arte  of  Navigation,  1577  (Crossley, 
p.  57).  See  also  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1547-1550,  p.  67;  Charlotte 
Fell  Smith,  John  Dee,  1909,  pp.  14-15. 

170  Dee's  Preface  to  Henry  Billingsley's  translation  of  Euclid's  Elements,  1571 
(Smith,  pp.  24-28). 

171  Necessary  Advertisement,  1577  (Crossley,  p.  53). 

172  Compendious  Rehearsall,  1592  (Crossley,  pp.  27  ff.). 
17«  Aubrey,  Brief  Lives,  ed.  Andrew  Clark,  1.  212-214. 
174  Smith,  p.  293. 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  53 

he  died  in  his  bed  in  1608.  James  doubtless  respected  Dee's 
learning,  and  he  may  have  been  assured  of  his  innocence 
by  the  aged  scholar's  friends,  who  were  numerous  and  in- 
fluential, —  Sir  Julius  Csesar,  for  instance.  Indeed,  Dee 
was  styled  "the  King  his  Mathematitian," m  —  a  title 
which  appears  to  imply  some  degree  of  royal  favor. 

James's  pardons  and  his  toleration  of  Dee  and  Lambe  and 
Forman  would  go  far  to  show  that  he  was  not  a  bigoted 
witch-prosecutor.  But  there  is  evidence  of  an  unequivocal 
nature.  It  concerns  the  king's  personal  activity  in  the  de- 
tection of  imposture.  On  this  point  the  records  are  decisive, 
and,  when  we  consider  the  prevalent  impression  as  to  James's 
character  as  a  witch-finder,  they  are  nothing  less  than  as- 
tounding.176 

First  of  all  we  have  a  charming  letter  from  James  to  the 
young  Prince  Henry.  It  bears  no  date,  but  unbiassed  judges 
put  it  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  reign,  and  Sir  Henry  Ellis 
believes  that  it  was  written  before  the  Prince  had  left  Scot- 
land. 

My  Sonne  I  ame  glaid  that  by  youre  Letre  I  maye  persave  that  ye 
make  some  progresse  in  learning.  ...  I  ame  also  glaide  of  the  discoverie 
of  yone  litle  counterfitte  Wenche.  I  praye  God  ye  maye  be  my  aire  [i.e., 
heir]  in  such  discoveries.  Ye  have  ofte  hearde  me  saye  that  most  miracles 
nou  a  dayes  proves  but  illusions,  and  ye  maye  see  by  this  hou  waire  judgis 
should  be  in  trusting  accusations  withoute  an  exacte  tryall;  and  lyke- 
wayes  hou  easielie  people  are  inducid  to  trust  wonders.  Lett  her  be 
kepte  fast  till  my  cumming ;   and  thus  God  blesse  you  my  sonne.177 

175  MS.  College  of  Arms  c.  37, 168,  quoted  by  F.  R.  Raines,  Rectors  of  Manches- 
ter and  Wardens  of  the  Collegiate  Church,  Part  ii,  1885,  p.  110  (Chetham  Society). 

176  James  has  been  derided  for  maintaining  the  doctrine  of  witchcraft  in  the 
Essex  divorce  case  (see  his  answer  to  Archbishop  Abbot  in  Truth  Brought  to  Light 
by  Time,  1651,  pp.  103  ff.).  This  discredit,  however,  such  as  it  is,  is  cancelled  by 
his  conduct  in  the  case  of  Sir  Thomas  Lake  (involving  a  precisely  similar  allegation 
of  witchcraft),  in  which  he  showed  much  acumen  in  unravelling  a  tangled  skein  of 
malice  and  perjury.  See  Gardiner,  History,  3.  189-194  (1895).  Mr.  Gardiner 
remarks  that  James  "prided  himself  upon  his  skill  in  the  detection  of  impostures" 
(3.  192). 

177  Harleian  MS.  6986,  art.  40  (autograph),  as  printed  by  Sir  Henry  Ellis,  Original 
Letters,  1st  Series,  1824,  3.  80-81.  The  letter  may  also  be  found  in  Birch,  Life  of 
Henry  Prince  of  Wales,  1760,  p.  37;  Letters  to  King  James  the  Sixth,  Maitland 
Club,  1835,  p.  xxxv.  (where  it  is  said,  erroneously,  to  be  in  reply  to  an  extant  letter 
of  January  1,  1603-4,  from  Prince  Henry) ;  Nichols,  Progresses  of  James  L,  1. 
304 ;  Halliwell,  Letters  of  the  Kings,  1848,  2.  102.  Cf.  Gifford's  edition  of  Ford, 
1.  clxxi.  (ed.  Dyce,  1869,  3.  276) ;  Quarterly  Review,  41.  80-82. 


54       ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

In  1604  we  find  James,  in  his  Counterblast  to  Tobacco, 
deriding  exorcism  in  a  style  worthy  of  Bancroft  and  Harsnet. 
"  O  omnipotent  power  of  Tobacco  !"  he  ejaculates.  "And 
if  it  could  by  the  smoke  thereof  chace  out  deuils,  as  the  smoke 
of  Tobias  fish  did  (which  I  am  sure  could  smel  no  stronger)  it 
would  serue  for  a  precious  Relicke,  both  for  the  superstitious 
Priests,  and  the  insolent  Puritanes,  to  cast  out  deuils 
withal."  178 

Another  letter  of  the  king's  should  be  given  in  full,  if  space 
allowed.  It  begins  by  reminding  the  recipient  "how  that 
in  late  time  we  discovered  and  put  to  flight  one  of  those  coun- 
terfeits, the  like  whereof  ye  now  advertise  us."  "By  this 
bearer,"  adds  King  James,  "we  send  unto  you  instructions 
suited  for  such  an  occasion,  willing  you  leave  nothing  untried 
to  discover  the  imposture."  It  appears  that  the  patient  was 
a  woman  who  lay  in  a  trance  and  had  supported  life  for  a 
long  time  on  one  small  cup  of  wine.  The  king  gives  wise 
directions  and  remarks  that  "miracles  like  those  of  which 
you  give  us  notice  should  be  all  ways  and  diligently  tested." 
And  he  concludes  with  the  words,  "It  .  .  .  becomes  us  to 
lose  no  opportunity  of  seeking  after  the  real  truth  of  pre- 
tended wonders,  that  if  true  we  may  bless  the  Creator  who 
hath  shown  such  marvels  to  men,  and  if  false  we  may  pun- 
ish the  impudent  inventors  of  them."  179 

In  1605  Sir  Roger  Wilbraham  notes  in  his  Journal,  imme- 
diately after  telling  a  witch-story :  —  "The  King's  maiestie, 
sithence  his  happie  comyng,  by  his  owne  skill  hath  discov- 
ered 2  notorious  impostures :  one  of  a  phisicion  that  made 
latyne  &  lerned  sermons  in  the  slepe :  which  he  did  by  secret 
premeditacion :  thother  of  a  woman  pretended  to  be  be- 
witched, that  cast  up  at  her  mouth  pynnes,  &  pynnes  were 
taken  by  divers  in  her  fitts  out  of  her  brest."  180 

178  Ed.  Arber,  p.  108. 

179  Dated  March  5th  (no  year).  Halliwell  (from  Rawlinson  MS.),  Letters  of 
the  Kings,  2.  124-125.  It  does  not  appear  to  whom  the  letter  was  addressed. 
Such  cases  of  real  or  pretended  fasting  are  common.  See,  for  example,  John 
Reynolds,  A  Discourse  upon  Prodigious  Abstinence :  occasioned  by  the  Twelve 
Moneths  Fasting  of  Martha  Taylor,  the  famed  Derbyshire  Damsell,  1669. 

180  Journal  of  Sir  Roger  Wilbraham,  1593-1616,  ed.  by  H.  S.  Scott,  p.  70  (Cam- 
den Miscellany,  10).  This  is  clearly  the  case  mentioned  by  Walter  Yonge  in  his 
Diary  (ed.  Roberts,  Camden  Society,  1848,  p.  12).  If  so,  the  bewitched  person 
was    "near  kinswoman  to  Doctor  Holland's  wife,  Rector  of  Exon   College  in 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  55 

The  first  of  these  two  impostors  was  Richard  Haydock 
of  New  College,  Oxford,  the  celebrated  Sleeping  Preacher. 
He  made  a  great  noise  in  the  world.  In  1605  James  sum- 
moned him  to  court,  where  he  preached  three  times.  The 
king  felt  sure  he  was  shamming.  He  soon  fathomed  Hay- 
dock's  mystery,  brought  him  to  repentance,  and  treated  him 
kindly  afterwards.181  The  doctor's  confession,  addressed  to 
King  James,  is  extant  among  the  State  Papers.182  Though 
witchcraft  was  not  involved,  the  incident  throws  light  on  the 
king's  frame  of  mind. 

King  James's  detection  of  Haydock  took  place  in  April, 
1605.  In  November  of  the  same  year  the  Gunpowder  Plot 
was  discovered.  James,  it  will  be  remembered,  boasted 
rather  pedantically  in  an  address  to  Parliament  that  he  had 
unriddled  a  dark  sentence  in  the  Mounteagle  letter  and  so 
was  in  effect  the  discoverer  of  the  conspiracy.183  He  made 
similar  pretensions  in  a  conversation  with  Giustinian,  the 
Venetian  ambassador.184  There  is  a  plain  connection  be- 
tween his  pride  in  this  exploit  and  the  shrewdness  he  had 
just  exhibited  in  the  affair  of  the  Sleeping  Preacher  and  in 
that  of  the  bewitched  woman,  for  Salisbury  gave  out  that 
he  and  other  Councillors  had  submitted  the  Mounteagle 
letter  to  the  king  because  of  "the  expectation  and  experience 
they  had  of  His  Majesties  fortunate  Judgement  in  cleering 
and  solving  of  obscure  Riddles  and  doubtful  Mysteries."  185 
It  makes  no  difference  whether  this    consultation  was  pro 

Oxford."     This  was  Thomas  Holland,  on  whom  see  Wood,  Athenae  Oxonienses, 
ed.  Bliss,  2.  111-112;  Foster,  Alumni  Oxonienses,  2.  731. 

181  King  James  his  Apophthegmes,  1643,  pp.  8-9 ;  Calendar  of  State  Papers, 
Domestic,  1603-1610,  pp.  212,  213;  Venetian,  1603-1607,  pp.  238,  240-241; 
letters  in  Lodge,  Illustrations  of  British  History,  2d  ed.,  1838,  3.  143-144,  153- 
155,  157-160;  Arthur  Wilson,  History  of  Great  Britain,  1653,  p.  Ill;  Baker's 
Chronicle,  ed.  1660,  p.  431 ;  Fuller,  Church  History,  Book  x.,  Century  xvii.,  §  56,  ed. 
Brewer,  6.  450 ;  Aubrey,  MS.  History  of  Wiltshire,  pp.  362-363,  as  quoted  by 
Halliwell,  Letters  of  the  Kings,  2.  124,  note;  Foster,  Alumni  Oxonienses,  2.  679; 
Dictionary  of  National  Biography. 

182  State  Papers,  James  I.,  Vol.  13.  No.  80.  It  is  an  obscure  and  rambling 
document. 

183  King  James  his  Speech  to  both  Houses  of  Parliament  on  Occasion  of  the  Gun- 
powder-Treason, ed.  1679,  p.  7;  cf.  Journal  of  Sir  Roger  Wilbraham,  pp.  70-71 
(Camden  Miscellany,  10). 

184  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Venetian,  1603-1607,  p.  327  (cf.  pp.  316-317). 

185  Discourse,  appended  to  King  James  his  Speech  (see  note  183,  above),  pp.  28- 
29  (cf.  pp.  30-31). 


56        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

forma,  mere  courtly  complaisance,  or  whether  the  Councillors 
really  got  some  help  from  the  king.  On  either  hypothesis,  the 
penchant  ofjames  for  playing  the  detective  is  equally  clear. 

The  second  case  mentioned  by  Wilbraham  was  pure  witch- 
craft. The  symptom  of  vomiting  pins  was  regarded  by  most 
scholars  as  decisive  against  fraud.  Thus  Cotta,  in  1616,  in 
enumerating  various  tests  by  which  (in  contradistinction 
to  swimming,  scratching,  and  other  things  that  he  repudiates) 
witchcraft  may  be  recognized,  accepts  this  as  one  that  is 
"palpable  and  not  obscure  to  any  eye  without  difficulty, 
offering  [itself]  to  plaine  and  open  vie  we."  186  It  now  ap- 
pears that  James,  more  than  ten  years  before  Cotta  wrote, 
had  confuted  this  infallible  test.  Yet  we  are  told  that  Cotta 
"was  in  advance  of  his  age,"  that  "he  published  his  book  in 
1616,  when  King  James's  doctrines  prevailed  in  full  force, 
and  it  attracted  little  attention."  187  I  agree  that  Cotta 
was  in  advance  of  his  age.  Be  it  so  —  but  what  shall  we 
then  say  of  James  I.  ? 

Another  undated  example  is  preserved  by  Aubrey.188  A 
gentlewoman  named  Katharine  Waldron,  who  "waited  on 
Sir  Francis  Seymor's  lady  of  Marlborough,"  pretended  to  be 
"bewitched  by  a  certain  woman."  The  phenomena  were 
similar  to  those  in  the  case  of  Mary  Glover,  which  misled  the 
Recorder  of  London  in  1603.189  The  king  "detected  the 
cheat"  by  a  clever,  though  somewhat  indecorous,  device. 

More  than  once,  when  James  was  unable  to  investigate 
these  matters  in  person,  he  intrusted  the  business  to  some- 
body else.  Thus,  in  1605,  a  warrant  was  issued  "for  such 
sums  as  the  Earl  of  Salisbury  shall  require,  for  the  charges 
of  two  maids  suspected  to  be  bewitched,  and  kept  at  Cam- 
bridge for  trial."  19°  Trial  in  this  record  of  course  does  not 
mean  trial  in  court  (for  it  was  not  a  crime  to  be  bewitched), 
but  test,  investigation.  Obviously  it  was  thought  that  the 
girls  might  be  shamming.  Again,  in  1611,  the  Council  sent 
a  letter  to  the  Bishop  of  Bangor  and  the  Judges  of  Assize 

186  Triall  of  Witch-craft,  p.  76. 

187  Wright,  Narratives  of  Sorcery  and  Magic,  2.  144. 

188  MS.  History  of  Wiltshire,  pp.  362-363  (Halliwell,  Letters  of  the  Kings,  2. 
124,  note). 

189  See  p.  29,  above. 

190  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1603-1610,  p.  218. 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  57 

for  County  Carnarvon  "  to  search  out  the  truth  of  a  supposed 
witchcraft  committed  on  six  young  maids."  191  This  was 
another  cautionary  measure  to  prevent  false  accusation  and 
the  arraignment  of  innocent  persons.  It  reminds  one  of 
the  action  of  Charles  I.  in  1634,  when  he  delegated  Bishop 
Bridgeman  to  investigate  the  second  Pendle  case.192  We 
shall  have  occasion  to  consider  the  attitude  of  King  Charles 
presently.  193 

And  now  we  come  to  the  most  distinguished  of  all  King 
James's  exploits  in  the  detection  of  fraudulent  bewitchment. 
It  is  a  case  which,  even  if  it  stood  absolutely  alone,  might 
suffice,  in  the  absence  of  adverse  testimony,  to  clear  his 
reputation. 

In  1616,  on  the  18th  day  of  July,  nine  persons  were  hanged 
at  Leicester.  Their  crime  was  the  bewitching  of  a  boy  of 
thirteen  or  fourteen,  named  Smythe,194  who  suffered  from 
fits 195  like  those  of  the  Throckmorton  girls  of  Warboys.196 
Indeed,  the  influence  of  that  famous  case  is  unmistakable. 
Justice  Fenner,  in  1593,  made  old  Samuel  recite  a  formula 
devised  by  one  of  the  hysterical  girls:  "As  I  am  a  Witch, 
and  did  consent  to  the  death  of  the  Lady  Cromwell,  so  I 
charge  the  deuil  to  suffer  Mistress  lane  to  come  out  of  her 
fitt  at  this  present."  197  Thereupon  the  girl  was  instantly 
relieved.  So  at  Leicester  in  1616  the  accused  were  obliged 
to  say,  "I  such  a  one  chardge  the  hors  [one  of  the  devils],  if 
I  be  a  wiche,  that  thou  come  forthe  of  the  chilld,"  whereupon 
young  Smythe.  ceased  to  be  tormented.198  The  judges  were 
Sir  Humphrey  Winch,  Justice  of  the  Common  Pleas,  and  Sir 
Randolph  Crew  (Serjeant),199  —  the  former  a  member  of 
the  Parliament  that  passed  the  Statute  of  1604.200 

191  Calendar,  1611-1618,  p.  29. 

192  Calendar,  1634-1635,  pp.  26,  77-79,  98,  129-130,  141,  152-153. 

193  See  p.  64,  below. 

194  On  his  identity  see  Kittredge,  King  James  I.  and  The  Devil  is  an  Ass 
(Modern  Philology,  9.  195-209). 

195  Letter  from  Alderman  Robert  Heyrick  of  Leicester  to  his  brother  Sir  William 
in  London,  dated  July  18,  1616  —  the  very  day  of  the  execution  (printed  by  Nichols, 
Leicestershire,  Vol.  2.  Part  ii.,  p.  471*). 

194  See  p.  32,  above. 

197  Witches  of  Warboys,  1593,  sig.  P2  r°. 

198  Heyrick's  letter. 

199  Nichols,  Progresses  of  James  I.,  3.  193 ;  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic, 
1611-1618,  p.  398. 

200  He  was  M.P.  for  the  Borough  of  Bedford  (Members  of  Parliament,  1.  442  a). 


58        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

About  a  month  after  the  execution  of  these  nine  witches, 
King  James  chanced  to  be  at  Leicester  on  a  royal  progress. 
He  stayed  there  not  more  than  twenty-four  hours.201  The 
Smythe  boy  was  still  having  his  fits,  and  six  more  accused 
persons  were  in  jail  awaiting  trial  at  the  autumn  assizes. 
Nobody  can  doubt  what  the  issue  would  have  been.  But 
now  James  intervened.  I  will  let  Francis  Osborne  (1593- 
1659)  tell  the  story.  "The  King  being  gratified  by  nothing 
more  than  an  Opportunity  to  shew  his  Dexterity  in  dis- 
covering an  Imposture  (at  which  I  must  confess  him  the 
promptest  Man  Living)  upon  his  arrival  convented  the  Boy. 
Where,  before  him,  (possibly  daunted  at  his  Presence,  or 
terrified  by  his  Words)  he  began  to  faulter,  so  as  the  King 
discovered  a  Fallacy.  And  did  for  a  further  Confirmation, 
send  him  to  Lambeth;  where  the  Servants  of  Dr.  George 
Abbot,™2  did  in  a  few  Weeks  discover  the  whole  Deceit.  And 
he  was  sent  back  to  his  Majesty  before  the  end  of  the  Prog- 
ress ;  where,  upon  a  small  entreaty,  he  would  repeat  all  his 
Tricks  oftentimes  in  a  Day."  203 

The  result  we  learn  from  a  contemporary  letter  written 
by  a  Leicester  alderman.204  Five  of  the  six  alleged  witches 
were  released  without  a  trial ;  the  sixth  had  died  in  prison. 
Nor  did  the  king  neglect  to  let  the  judges  see  that  he  was 
not  pleased  with  their  lack  of  acumen.  "Justice  Winch," 
writes  Secretary  Chamberlain  to  Sir  Dudley  Carleton  on 
October  12,  "and  Serjeant  Crew  are  somewhat  discoun- 
tenanced for  hanging  certain  Witches  in  their  circuit  at 
Leicester;  whereas  the  King,  coming  that  way,  found  out 
the  juggling  and  imposture  of  the  boy,  that  counterfeited 
to  be  bewitched."  205 

201  The  king  went  from  Nottingham  to  Leicester  on  August  15th,  spent  the 
night  there,  and  proceeded  to  Dingley,  on  the  16th  (Nichols,  Progresses,  3.  180- 
181,  cf.  3.  175). 

202  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. 

203  Essays  (Miscellaneous  Works,  11th  ed.,  1722,  1.  30-31). 

204  Robert  Heyrick's  letter,  October  15,  1616  (printed  by  Nichols,  Leicestershire, 
Vol.  2.  Part  ii.,  p.  471*). 

205  Nichols,  Progresses,  3.  192-193;  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1611- 
1618,  p.  398.  We  can  make  out  a  satisfactory  account  of  the  case  by  comparing 
Osborne  with  Heyrick's  two  letters  (one  of  July  18,  the  other  of  October  15,  1616, 
both  printed  by  Nichols,  Leicestershire,  Vol.  2.  Part  ii.,  p.  471*).  I  have  followed 
Heyrick  (as  being  absolutely  contemporary  and  on  the  spot)  wherever  he  differs 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  59 

King  James's  action  in  the  Leicester  case  of  1616  took 
instant  effect.  The  clamor  of  the  populace  against  witches 
was  not  silenced,  but  the  judges  henceforth  used  extraor- 
dinary circumspection.  They  had  no  mind  to  incur  the  royal 
displeasure.  The  result  should  be  carefully  noted.  From 
July,  1616,  until  James's  death  on  March  27,  1625,  almost 
exactly  nine  years,  only  five  persons  are  known  to  have  been 
executed  for  witchcraft  in  England.206  Two  of  these  were 
hanged  at  Bristol  in  1624,  and  I  have  no  details.207  One  — 
Elizabeth  Sawyer  of  Edmonton  —  confessed  after  convic- 
tion.208 The  other  two  were  Margaret  and  Philippa  Flower, 
who  were  executed  at  Lincoln  on  March  11,  1619.  Their 
case  is  very  remarkable.  A  bare  statement  of  facts  will 
prove  how  impossible  it  was  for  any  jury  to  acquit  them  or 
any  king  to  show  them  favor.  Incidentally,  we  should  ob- 
serve that  they  would  have  been  hanged  under  the  Eliza- 
bethan statute. 

Joan  Flower  was  a  foul-mouthed  old  woman,  much  given 
to  cursing,  and  suspected  by  her  neighbors  of  being  a  witch. 
She  was  incensed  at  the  Countess  of  Rutland  for  discharging 
her  daughter,  Margaret  Flower,  from  service  at  Belvoir 
Castle,  though  there  were  good  grounds  for  it,  and  though 
the  Countess  had  treated  the  girl  with  much  kindness.  Soon 
after,  three  of  the  Earl's  children  fell  sick,  and  two  of  them 
died,  one  his  eldest  son.  The  Earl,  it  seems,  had  no  suspicion 
against  the  Flowers.  Ultimately,  however,  Joan  and  her 
two  daughters  were  arrested,  doubtless  as  a  result  of  local 
gossip.  Joan  Flower  was  never  tried  for  the  crime.  At  the 
time,  as  it  appears,  of  her  examination,  she  defiantly  sub- 

from  Osborne.  Heyrick  does  not  mention  the  king,  but  Osborne's  testimony  as  to 
James's  intervention  is  corroborated  in  all  essentials  by  Chamberlain's  letter  of 
October  12,  1616  (Nichols,  Progresses,  3.  192-193;  Calendar,  1611-1618,  p.  398). 
Osborne,  by  the  way,  speaks  of  his  narrative  as  follows:  "I  will  here  relate  a 
story  of  my  own  knowledge"  (p.  29). 

206  Mr.  William  Wheater's  statement  that  six  persons  suffered  death  for  witch- 
craft at  York  in  1622  (Old  Yorkshire,  ed.  by  William  Smith,  4.  266)  is  a  mistake. 
This  was  the  Fairfax  case.  Six  persons  were  indicted,  but  all  of  them  were  dis- 
charged without  a  complete  trial  (see  p.  63,  below). 

207  John  Latimer,  Annals  of  Bristol  in  the  Seventeenth  Century,  p.  91. 

208  There  was  no  torture.  She  confessed  to  the  minister,  Henry  Goodcole,  for 
her  soul's  sake.  See  Goodcole's  narrative,  The  Wonderfull  Discoverie  of  Elizabeth 
Sawyer,  1621,  reprinted  in  The  Works  of  John  Ford,  ed.  1895  (Bullen),  1.  lxxxi  ff. 


60        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

jected  herself  to  a  strange  test.     She  "called  for  Bread  and 
Butter,  and  wished  it  might  never  go  through  if  she  were 
guilty  of  that  wherevpon  she  was  examined :    so  mumbling 
it  in  her  mouth,  never  spoke  more  words  after,  but  fell  doune 
and  dyed  as  she  was  carryed  to  Lincolne  Goale."     Both  her 
daughters  confessed  and  were  hanged.209     There  can  be  no 
vestige  of  doubt  in  any  unprejudiced  mind  that  these  three 
women  were  guilty  in  intent.     They  had  practised  what 
they  supposed  to  be  witchcraft  in  order  to  destroy  the  chil- 
dren, and  they  believed  they  had  succeeded.     We  may  pity 
n  them  for  their  malicious  infatuation,  but  we  cannot  deny 
(  that  their  fate  was  deserved.     Nor  was  it  conceivable  that 
■  they  should  escape  it  when  God  himself  seemed  to  have 
pronounced  their  guilt. 

Five  executions,  then,  make  the  whole  account  for  the  last 
nine  years  of  King  James's  reign,' and  with  regard  to  two  of 
these,  there  could  be  no  suspicion  of  counterfeiting.  The 
Earl's  children  had  really  died,  and  the  accused  had  certainly 
tried  to  kill  them  by  sorcery.  Here  there  was  no  ground  on 
which  the  king's  acumen  in  detecting  imposture  could  work, 
nor  could  any  amount  of  caution  on  the  part  of  the  judges 
avoid  the  plain  conclusion.210 

209  The  Wonderfull  Discoverie  of  the  Witchcrafts  of  Margaret  and  Philip  Flower, 
1619. 

210  We  may  laugh  at  witchcraft,  but  it  by  no  means  follows  that  all  the  afflicted 
persons  were  impostors  or  that  the  defendants  were  always  guiltless.  The  children 
who  cried  out  on  the  Salem  goodwives  and  the  numerous  other  "young  liars"  (as 
one  unsympathetic  writer  has  called  them)  were  really  afflicted,  though  the  cause 
was  mistaken.  Much  of  their  play-acting  was  a  part  of  their  disease.  As  for  the 
witches  themselves  (I  do  not  here  refer  to  Salem  in  particular),  it  is  clear  that  many 
of  them  were  malignant  creatures  who  did  what  they  could  to  get  into  communion 
with  the  fiend  and  thought  they  had  succeeded.  As  Mr.  Andrew  Lang  well  remarks, 
"There  can  be  little  doubt  that  many  witches  were  in  intention  malevolent  enough. 
They  believed  in  their  own  powers,  and  probably  dealt  in  poison  on  occasion" 
(History  of  Scotland,  2.  352).  Others  were  precocious  experimenters  in  super- 
normal mental  states.  I  need  but  refer  to  Professor  Wendell's  suggestive  essay 
on  the  Salem  witches  (Stelligeri,  1893  ;  cf.  his  Cotton  Mather,  pp.  93  ff.)  and  to 
Mr.  Brodie-Innes's  paper  on  Scottish  Witchcraft  Trials,  in  which  this  fruitful 
subject  of  investigation  is  broached,  with  illuminating  remarks.  Neither  professes 
to  do  more  than  raise  the  question.  The  undiscovered  country  of  witch  pathology 
awaits  its  trained  explorer.  Meantime  we  may  speak  respectfully  of  some  of  our 
elders  —  Wierus,  Scot,  Webster,  Bekker,  and  Meric  Casaubon  (not  all  of  them 
on  the  same  side)  —  who  have  made  wise  observations  needing  only  to  be  translated 
from  the  obsolete  technical  language  of  their  day  in  order  to  appeal  to  the  modern 
alienist.     For  cases  of  genuine  and  indubitable  attempts  at  sorcery,  see,  for  example, 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  61 

But  the  effect  of  King  James's  rebuke  of  the  Leicester 
justices  is  visible  not  only  (by  inference)  in  the  lack  of  exe- 
cutions. It  may  also  be  traced  in  more  positive  ways.  In 
1620  occurred  the  notorious  fraud  of  William  Perry,  the 
Boy  of  Bilson.  The  supposed  witch  was  acquitted  at 
the  Stafford  assizes,  August  10,  1620,  and  the  judges  in- 
trusted Perry  to  Bishop  Morton,  who  was  present.  Morton 
detected  the  trick,  and  at  the  next  summer  assizes,  June  26, 
1621,  the  boy  made  public  amends,  asking  forgiveness  of  the 
alleged  witch,  who  was  there  to  receive  this  rehabilitation.211 
James  was  not  personally  active  —  so  far  as  we  know  — 
in  this  exposure,  but  that  it  was  pleasing  to  him  we  can  infer, 
not  only  from  our  general  knowledge,  but  from  the  fact  that 
Arthur  Wilson,  in  his  History  of  Great  Britain,  published 
in  1653,  appends  to  the  story  the  following  observation : 
"The  King  took  delight  by  the  line  of  his  Reason  to  sound 
the  depth  of  such  brutish  Impostors,  and  he  discovered  many." 
Then,  after  reporting  the  case  of  Haydock,  the  Sleeping 
Preacher,  Wilson  continues:  "Some  others,  both  men  and 
women,  inspired  with  such  Enthusiasms,  and  fanatick  fancies, 
he  reduced  to  their  right  senses,  applying  his  Remedies  suitable 
to  the  Distemper,  wherein  he  made  himself  often  very  merry 
.  .  .  but  some  of  their  Stories  being  a  little  coarse,  are  not 
fit  to  be  here  related."  212 

Tributes  to  King  James's  interest  in  detecting  fraudulent 
cases  are  offered  not  only  by  Osborne  (who  speaks  of  "the 
charge  he  gave  the  Judges,  to  be  circumspect  in  condemning 
those,  committed  by  ignorant  Justices,  for  Diabolical  Com- 
pacts"),213 but  by  Bishop  Goodman,  and  by  Fuller.  Good- 
man's testimony  is  brief,  but  to  the  purpose.  James,  he  says, 
"was  ever  apt  to  search  into  secrets,  to  try  conclusions  [i.e. 
experiments],  as  I  did  know  some  who  saw  him  run  to  see  one 
in  a  fit  whom  they  said  was  bewitched."  214    Fuller  provides 

Proceedings  of  the  Society  of  Antiquaries,  2d  Series,  18.  140  ff. ;    W.  M.  Hart, 
Archaeologia,  40.  397.     Examples  are  countless. 

211  Hutchinson,  Historical  Essay,  1718,  pp.  217  ff.  (from  the  narrative).  Cf. 
The  Second  Part  of  the  Boy  of  Bilson,  1698,  pp.  1-9 ;  Gee,  The  Foot  out  of  the 
Snare,  1624,  pp.  53-54. 

212  Pp.  111-112.  For  Wilson's  own  skepticism  on  the  subject  of  witchcraft,  see 
his  Autobiography,  in  Peck,  Desiderata  Curiosa,  Vol.  2.  Book  xii,  pp.  26-27. 

213  Essay  i.  (Miscellaneous  Works,  11th  edition,  1722,  p.  29).     Cf.  p.  48,  above. 

214  Court  of  King  James  the  First,  ed.  Brewer,  1839,  1.  3. 


62        ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

an  elaborate  testimonium.™  After  telling  of  the  Boy  of 
Bilson,  he  continues  as  follows: 

"Indeed,  all  this  king's  reign  was  scattered  over  with 
cheaters  of  this  kind.  Some  papists,  some  sectaries,  some 
neither,  as  who  dissembled  such  possession,  either  out  of  mal- 
ice to  be  revenged  on  those  whom  they  accused  of  witchcraft, 
or  covetous  to  enrich  themselves." 

Then,  after  giving  several  examples,  which  he  calls  "a 
few  out  of  many,"  216  he  concludes  thus :  — 

"King  James  .  .  .  was  no  less  dexterous  than  desirous 
to  make  discovery  of  these  deceits.  Various  were  his  ways  in 
detecting  them,  aweing  some  into  confession  with  his  pres- 
ence, others  by  promise  of  pardon  and  fair  usage.  He  or- 
dered it  so,  that  a  proper  courtier  made  love  to  one  of  these 
bewitched  maids,  and  quickly  Cupid's  arrows  drave  out  the 
pretended  darts  of  the  devil.  Another  there  was,  the  tides 
of  whose  possession  did  so  ebb  and  flow,  that  punctually  they 
observed  one  hour  till  the  king  came  to  visit  her.  The  maid, 
loath  to  be  so  unmannerly  as  to  make  his  majesty  attend 
her  time,  antedated  her  fits  many  hours,  and  instantly  ran 
through  the  whole  zodiac  of  tricks  which  she  used  to  play. 
A  third,  strangely  affected  when  the  first  verse  of  St.  John's 
Gospel  was  read  unto  her  in  our  translation,  was  tame  and 
quiet  whilst  the  same  was  pronounced  in  Greek,  her  English 
devil  belike  understanding  no  other  language.  The  fre- 
quency of  such  forged  possessions  wrought  such  an  altera- 
tion upon  the  judgment  of  King  James,  that  he,  receding 
from  what  he  had  written  in  his  Demonology,  grew  first 
diffident  of,  and  then  flatly  to  deny  the  workings  of 
witches  and  devils  as  but  falsehoods  and  delusions."  217  It 
seems  probable  that  Fuller  goes  too  far  in  this  last  statement, 
though  Osborne  says  something  to  the  same  effect.218  It  is 
not  likely  that  King  James  ever  gave  up  his  theoretical  belief 
in  witchcraft.219     It  is  clear,  however,  that,  in  his  later  years, 

215  Church  History,  Book  x.,  cent,  xvii.,  §§  54-57  (ed.  Brewer,  5.  448-452).  Cf. 
Gilford's  Jonson,  7.  140,  note  4. 

216  §  56.     The  only  case  that  we  can  date  is  Haydock's  (see  p.  55,  above). 

217  §  57  (6.  451-452). 

218  Essay  i.  (see  p.  48,  above). 

219  The  Dsemonologie  (unmodified)  was  included  in  the  authorized  edition  of  the 
king's  Works  in  1616. 


GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE  63 

he  came  close  to  the  opinion  pronounced,  in  1711,  by  Addi- 
son in  a  famous  passage  (echoed  by  Blackstone) :  "I  be- 
lieve in  general  that  there  is,  and  has  been  such  a  thing  as 
witchcraft ;  but  at  the  same  time  can  give  no  credit  to  any 
particular  instance  of  it."  220  But  we  must  return  to  King 
James's  good  influence  on  the  judges. 

This  influence  comes  out  very  clearly  in  the  Fairfax  case, 
six  years  after  James's  rebuke  to  Justice  Winch  and  Serjeant 
Crew.221  In  1622,  Edward  Fairfax,  the  translator  of  Tasso, 
brought  six  women  before  the  York  assizes  on  the  charge  of 
bewitching  his  two  daughters.  The  fits  had  lasted  for  sev- 
eral months  and  were  similar  to  those  of  the  Throckmorton 
girls :  the  Warboys  narrative  was  still  doing  its  work.  At 
the  same  assizes,  one  of  Fairfax's  neighbors,  a  gentleman 
named  John  Jeffray,  accused  the  same  defendants  of  be- 
witching his  daughter  Maud.  The  grand  jury  was  ex- 
ceptionally intelligent,  including  six  justices  of  the  peace. 
It  had  already  "received  a  good  caveat  by  a  message  from  the 
judge  to  be  very  careful  in  the  matter  of  witches."  222  Yet 
it  found  a  true  bill,  and  the  trial  began. 

The  six  women  were  arraigned  on  August  9,  1622.223 
Mark  the  course  of  proceedings.  All  three  of  the  afflicted 
girls  fell  into  a  trance  in  the  presence  of  the  court  and  were 
carried  out  insensible.  Sir  George  Ellis  and  some  other 
justices,  leaving  the  bench,  followed,  and  exerted  themselves 
to  discover  the  imposture  that  they  suspected.  They  soon 
returned,  declaring  that  the  Jeffray  girl  had  confessed  that 
she  had  acted  throughout  by  the  direction  of  her  parents. 
Maud  Jeffray  denied  that  she  had  made  the  alleged  admis- 
sions; but  her  father  was  sent  to  jail  forthwith,  and  his 
charge  was  dismissed.224  The  Fairfax  girls,  however,  had 
not  been  found  to  be  counterfeiting,  and  the  trial  of  that  case 
went  on.  But  the  court  was  determined  to  avoid  the  mis- 
take made  at  Leicester  in  1616.     The  presiding  justice,  after 

220  Spectator  for  July  14,  1711  (No.  117);  cf.  Blackstone,  Commentaries,  Book 
iv.,  chap.  4,  sect.  6  (4th  edition,  1770,  4.  60-61). 

221  Full  details  of  this  case  are  given  in  Fairfax's  own  narrative,  entitled  Dsemono- 
logia  (edited  by  William  Grainge,  Harrogate,  1882). 

222  Fairfax  says  this  message  was  delivered  to  the  grand  jury  in  his  hearing  (p. 
126). 

223  Fairfax,  p.  126.  ™  Pp.  123-127. 


64       ENGLISH  WITCHCRAFT  AND  JAMES  THE  FIRST 

some  witnesses  had  been  heard,  instructed  the  jury  that  the 
evidence  "reached  not  to  the  point  of  the  statute,"  stopped 
the  trial,  and  discharged  the  defendants.225  Thereafter  it 
was  "given  out,"  as  Fairfax  tells  us,  that  "Jeff ray  and  his 
family  devised  the  practice,  to  which  they  drew  my  eldest 
daughter,  and  she  the  younger."  Fairfax  himself  was 
exonerated.226 

Here  we  see  the  influence  of  the  king's  precept  and  ex- 
ample at  every  turn.  The  grand  jury  was  warned  to  be 
careful,  the  judges  were  eager  to  discover  an  imposture,  and, 
thinking  they  had  done  so,  yet  not  daring  to  trust  the  jury 
to  acquit,  they  found  that  the  facts  alleged  did  not  bring  the 
case  under  the  statute  and  took  it  away  from  the  jury. 
And  finally — as  if  to  leave  to  posterity  no  doubt  whatever 
of  the  first  source  of  all  this  caution  and  circumspection  — 
Fairfax  mentions  King  James  in  the  most  unequivocal  way. 
His  narrative  is,  in  effect,  an  appeal  from  the  judges  to 
public  opinion.  His  daughters,  he  maintains,  are  certainly 
no  tricksters ;  they  are  in  an  altogether  different  category 
from  "  those  whose  impostures  our  wise  king  so  lately  laid 
open."  227 

Nor  did  the  good  effects  of  King  James's  skeptical  temper 
and  of  the  lesson  he  taught  the  judges  cease  with  his  death. 
I  can  find  but  one  execution  for  witchcraft  in  the  first  seven 
years  of  Charles  I.  Then  occurred  the  famous  case  of  the 
Lancashire  Witches  of  1633.  On  this  occasion  seventeen 
persons  were  convicted,  but  the  judge  did  not  believe  in 
their  guilt,  and  brought  the  matter  to  the  king's  attention. 
A  careful  investigation  ensued,  and  none  of  the  alleged 
witches  suffered  death.  Hitherto  this  case  has  been  regarded 
as  marking  a  contrast  between  Charles's  creed  and  practice 
and  the  acts  and  belief  of  his  father.  Mr.  Crossley,  who  is 
so  severe  on  King  James,  praises  King  Charles  warmly  for 
thus  "distinguishing  himself  ...  in  days  when  philosophy 
stumbled  and  murder  arrayed  itself  in  the  robes  of  justice 
—  by  an  enlightened  exercise  of  the  kingly  prerogative  of 
mercy."228  Wright  remarks  that  "Charles  I.  had  not  the 
same  weak  prejudices  in  these  matters  as  his  father."  229     It 

225  P.  127.      22«  P.  124.      227  P.  81.     2!»  Edition  of  Potts's  Discoverie,  p.  Ixxvii. 
229  Narratives  of  Sorcery  and  Magic,  2.  117. 


GEORGE   LYMAN  KITTREDGE  65 

is  well  to  approve  King  Charles,  whose  personal  record  on 
this  matter  of  witchcraft  is  laudable,  but  it  must  now  be 
quite  clear  that  he  was  merely  following  his  father's  praise- 
worthy example. 


p 


Our  scrutiny  of  King  James's  record  is  finished.     No  sum- 
ming up  is  necessary.     The  defendant  is  acquitted  by  the 
facts.     One  final  remark,  however,  may  be  made,  in  lieu  of 
a  peroration.     Diligent  search  has  so  far  brought  to  light 
less  than  forty  executions  for  wit.phrrfl.ft.  throughout  England'' 
in  the  reign  of  James  I.,  or  an  average  of  about  two  a  year/^) 
Contrast  with  this  statement  the  fact  that  in  ten  years/ 
of^the  same  reign  (6-15  James  I.)  at  least  thirty-two  person s\ 
were  pressed  to  death  in  the  single  County  of  Middlesex^ 
for  refusing  to  plead  in  cases  of  felony  (not  witchcraft),  or  an 
average  of  over  three  a  year,  and   that,  in  the  same  county 
for  the  same  period,  at  least,  seven  hundred  persons   were 
hanged  for  felonies  other  than  witchcraft,  pr_an  average  of 
seventy   a   year.230    These  figures  call  for  no   commentary. 
We  may  double  or  treble  the  number  of  witch-hangings,  if 
we  will,  in  order  to  allow  for  incompleteness  in  the  published 
records,  and  it  still  remains  true  that  the  reign  o£  James  I. 
was  not,  in  this  regard,  a  dark  and  bloody  period. J 

230  Jeaffreson,  Middlesex  County  Records,  2.  xvii.-xviii.,  liii. 

Cambridge, 
April  1,  1911. 


KING  JAMES  I,  AND  THE  DEVIL  IS  AN  ASS 


G.  L.  KITTREDGE 


Reprinted  for  private  circulation  from 
Modern  Philology,  Vol.  IX,  No.  2,  October  191 1 


KING  JAMES  I  AND  THE  DEVIL  IS  AN  ASS 

Ben  Jonson's  satirical  comedy,  The  Devil  Is  an  Ass,  was  presented 
by  the  King's  Players  in  1616  at  the  Blackfriars.  Its  contemptuous 
attitude  toward  witchcraft  and  demoniacal  possession  has  been 
much  discussed  and  heartily  approved,  but  the  editors  and  critics 
have  overlooked  a  number  of  circumstances  that  are  highly  sig- 
nificant. 

We  may  first  notice  the  scornful  words  of  Satan  to  Pug,  almost  at 
the  beginning  of  the  play.  They  contain  a  remarkable  fling  at  the 
credulity  of  Middlesex  juries: 

You  have  some  plot  now 
Upon  a  tunning  of  ale,  to  stale  the  yeast, 
Or  keep  the  churn  so  that  the  butter  come  not, 
Spite  o'  the  housewives  cord,  or  her  hot  spit  ? 
Or  some  good  ribibe  about  Kentish  Town, 
Or  Hogsden,  you  would  hang  now  for  a  witch, 
Because  she  will  not  let  you  play  round  Robin; 
And  you'll  go  sour  the  citizens'  cream  'gainst  Sunday, 
That  she  may  be  accus'd  for't,  and  condemn'd 
By  a  Middlesex  jury,  to  the  satisfaction 
Of  their  offended  friends,  the  Londoners'  wives, 
Whose  teeth  were  set  on  edge  with  it  ?     (I,  i,  12-23)1 

The  allusion  is  obviously  to  three  witch  trials  of  the  preceding 
year.  In  1615  Elizabeth  Rutter,  Joan  Hunt,  and  Agnes  Berry  had 
severally  been  convicted  of  witchcraft  by  Middlesex  juries  and 
hanged.  Agnes  Berry  was  charged  with  causing  Grace  Halsey  to 
"languish  and  waste  away."  Joan  Hunt  was  indicted  for  bewitching 
to  death  an  infant  of  three  years.  Against  Elizabeth  Rutter  there 
were  no  less  than  four  indictments,  three  of  them  for  murder  by 

»The  following  remark  about  Middlesex  juries  is  worth  quoting  here.  It  occurs  in 
a  letter  from  Bacon  to  James  I  (January  22,  1616)  concerning  the  trial  of  Somerset  for 
the  murder  of  Overbury:  "I  said  to  your  Majesty  that  which  I  do  now  repeat,  that 
the  evidence  upon  which  my  Lord  of  Somerset  standeth  indicted  is  of  a  good  strong 
thread,  considering  impoisoning  is  the  darkest  of  offences;  but  that  the  thread  must  be 
well  spun  and  woven  together.  For  your  Majesty  knoweth  it  is  one  thing  to  deal  with  a 
jury  of  Middlesex  and  Londoners,  and  another  to  deal  with  the  Peers;  whose  objects  perhaps 
will  not  be  so  much  what  is  before  them  in  the  present  case  (which  I  think  is  as  odious 
to  them  as  to  the  vulgar)  but  what  may  be  hereafter"  (Spedding,  Letters  and  Life  of  Bacon, 
V,  231). 
195]  1  [Modeen  Philology,  October,  1911 


2  G.    L.    KlTTREDGE 

witchcraft.1  These  trials  must  have  made  a  great  noise,  for  the 
hanging  of  witches  was  a  rare  event  in  Middlesex.  Mr.  Jeaffreson, 
the  editor  of  the  Middlesex  Records,  has  found  only  these  three  execu- 
tions for  witchcraft  in  that  county  during  the  whole  of  James  the 
First's  reign,2  and  Mr.  Inderwick  has  discovered  only  eight  such 
executions  in  Middlesex  for  a  period  of  over  one  hundred  and  sixteen 
years  (1550-1666)  .3  Perhaps,  then,  the  cases  of  1615  were  what 
suggested  to  Jonson  the  composition  of  a  play  which  should  satirize 
witchcraft. 

In  the  fifth  act  Jonson  brought  in  a  scene  of  sham  demoniacal 
possession.  His  procedure  can  hardly  have  been  directly  suggested 
by  the  Middlesex  trials  of  the  preceding  year,  for  these  involved 
neither  possession  nor  fraud.  There  are,  to  be  sure,  cases  of  demoni- 
acal possession  in  Machiavelli's  Belfegor,  but  the  patients  are  really 
possessed  and  the  circumstances  have  no  resemblance  to  those  in 
the  drama.  Indeed,  Jonson  owes  nothing  to  the  Belfegor  except 
perhaps  the  mere  hint  for  Pug's  futile  expedition  to  this  world. 
The  most  superficial  comparison  of  the  drama  with  the  novel  will 
suffice  to  show  that  Jonson's  demoniac  scene  is  not  indebted  to  the 
Belfegor  for  anything  whatever,  in  general  or  in  particular.  It  is 
absolutely  independent  of  the  Italian  in  all  respects.  We  cannot 
even  hold  that  the  Belfegor  suggested  to  Jonson  the  inclusion  of  a 
demoniac  scene.  For  our  present  purposes,  then,  the  Belfegor  may 
be  ignored,  and  the  same  is  true  of  Friar  Rush.  What  we  need  is 
a  notorious  example  of  fraudulent  possession  occurring  just  before 
the  play  appeared,  and  the  impostor  should  be  a  boy  of  about  thir- 
teen. For  Meercraft,  in  persuading  Fitzdottrel  to  counterfeit, 
remarks  encouragingly — 

Sir,  be  confident, 
'Tis  no  hard  thing  t'  outdo  the  devil  in: 
A  boy  o'  thirteen  year  old  made  him  an  ass 
But  t'other  day.4 

i  Middlesex  County  Records,  ed.  by  J.  C.  Jeaffreson,  II,  108,  110,  116,  218-19.  Both 
Joan  Hunt  and  her  husband  William  had  been  tried  on  charges  of  witchcraft  and  acquitted 
in  1614  (II,  95,  96,  217,  218). 

1 II,  liii.  There  were  doubtless  other  executions  (for  the  records  are  incomplete) 
but  there  cannot  have  been  many.  One  occurred  in  1621  (Henry  Goodcole,  The  Wonder- 
full  Discoverie  of  Elizabeth  Sawyer,  1621,  reprinted  in  Bullen's  Ford,  1895,  I,  lxxxi-cvii). 

*  Side- Lights  on  the  Stuarts,  2d  ed.,  1891,  pp.  169-70. 

« V,  5,  48-51  (Jonson's  numbering).  It  is  well  known  that  Jonson  used  the  sixteenth- 
century  Darrel  cases  for  details;  but  what  we  are  discussing  is  not  the  minutiae  of  the 
scene,  but  the  moving  cause,  the  occasion  for  including  it  at  all. 

196 


King  James  I  and  The  Devil  Is  an  Ass  3 

The  case  which  Meercraft  cites  must  be  that  of  young  Smith,  of 
Husbands  Bosworth,  Leicestershire.  We  have  two  accounts  of  the 
affair.  One,  strictly  contemporary,  is  embodied  in  a  letter  written 
on  July  18,  1616,  by  Alderman  Robert  Heyrick,  of  Leicester,  to  his 
younger  brother,  Sir  William,  in  London.1  The  other,  less  accurate, 
but  furnishing  valuable  details,  may  be  found  in  Francis  Osborne's 
first  Essay.2  The  business  is  also  mentioned  in  a  letter  from  Sec- 
retary Chamberlain  to  Sir  Dudley  Carleton,  dated  October  12,  1616.3 

Heyrick's  letter  is  worth  reprinting,  for  it  is  important,  and 
Nichols's  Leicestershire  (which  contains  it)  is  not  very  common  in 
this  country. 

Although  we  have  bene  greatly  busyed  this  4  or  5  days  past,  being  syse 
tyme,  and  a  busy  syse  speacyally  about  the  araynment  of  a  sort  of  woomen, 
Wytches,  wl  9  of  them  shal  be  executed  at  the  gallows  this  fornone,  for 
bewitching  of  a  younge  gentellman  of  the  adge  of  12  or  13  years  old,  beinge 
the  soon  of  one  Mr.  Smythe,  of  Husbands  Bosworth,  brother  to  Mr.  Henry 
Smythe,  that  made  the  booke  which  we  call  Mr.  Smythe's  Sarmons.  Your 
man  Sampson  stays,  and  yt  is  to  tedyous  to  write  anny  one  thing  unto  you 
of  the  matter;  and  the  examynacyons  and  finding  out  of  the  matter  came 
to  my  hand  in  wry  ting  just  as  I  began  your  lettar.  Only  I  will  signifye  unto 
you  of  the  chyld's  straundg  fits,  who  was  brought  hythar  of  Sayturday  last 
to  be  shewed  to  the  Judges;  and  since  his  coming  hither  he  hath  had  dyvars 
wonderfull  straundg  fyts  in  the  syght  of  all  the  greatest  parsons  here,  as 
dyvers  knyghts  and  ladies,  and  manny  othars  of  the  bettar  sort,  most 
tereble  to  be  tolld.  Sir  Henry  Hastings  hath  doon  what  he  colld  to  holld 
him  in  his  fit;  but  he  and  another  as  strong  as  he  could  not  hold  him;  yf 
he  might  have  his  arm  at  liberty,  he  woolld  stryke  himsellfe  suche  bloes  on 
his  brest,  being  in  his  shirt,  that  you  myght  here  the  sound  of  yt  the  length 
of  a  long  chamber,  soumtyms  50  bloes,  soumtyms  100,  yea  soumtyms  2  or 

1  Printed  in  Nichols's  Leicestershire,  II,  ii,  471*.  along  with  another  letter  of  Hey- 
rick's  on  the  further  history  of  the  case,  dated  October  15,  1616.  Cf.  Gentleman's 
Magazine  for  1829,  Vol.  XCIX,  Part  II,  pp.  515-16  (Gentleman's  Magazine  Library, 
ed.  Gomme,  Popular  Superstitions,  1884,  p.  235);  Nichols,  Progresses  of  James  I,  III, 
193,  n.  1;  Gmor<£¥ord7T827^  clxxii-clx^xiii,  clxxx;  Dyce's  Ford,  1869,  III,  276;  James 
Thompson,  History  of  Leicester,  1849,  pp.  344-45;  Poss,  Judges  of  England,  VI,  202. 
Alderman  Heyrick  died  June  14,  1618,  at  the  age  of  seventy-eight;  his  brother,  Sir 
William,  was  the  king's  jeweler  (see  Nichols,  Progresses,  II,  463,  n.  3;    III,  180,  n.  2). 

8  "  On  such  as  condemn  All  they  understand  not  a  Reason  for"  (Miscellaneous  Works, 
11th  ed.,  1722,  I,  29-31).  Osborne  was  born  in  1593;  the  essay  was  first  published  in 
1659,  the  year  of  his  death.  In  introducing  the  anecdote,  he  remarks,  "I  will  here 
relate  a  Story  of  my  own  Knowledge";  but  he  was  writing  a  good  while  after  the  event. 
Hence  I  ignore  certain  of  his  statements  that  are  inconsistent  with  Heyrick  or  Cham- 
berlain. 

•  Printed  by  Nichols,  Progresses,  III,  192-93  (cf.  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic, 
1611-1618,  p.  398). 

197 


4  G.    L.    KlTTKEDGE 

300  bloes,  that  the  least  of  them  was  able  to  stryke  doune  a  strong  man; 
and  yet  all  he  did  to  himself  did  him  no  hurt.  6  of  the  witches  had  6  severall 
sperits,  one  in  the  lyknes  of  a  hors,  another  like  a  dog,  another  a  cat,  another 
a  pullemar,1  another  a  fishe,  another  a  code,2  with  whom  evary  one  of  them 
tormented  him:  he  woolld  make  soom  syne  according  to  the  sperit;  as, 
when  the  hors  tormented  him,  he  woold  whinny;  when  the  cat  tormented 
him,  he  would  cry  like  a  cat,  &c.  When  he  was  in  his  fyt,  they  were  soomtymes 
brought  to  him,  and  then  they  were  chardged  to  speake  sarten  words, 
and  to  name  theare  sperits,  and  one  of  them  to  speake  yt  aftar  another;  as 
thus:  "I  such  a  one  chardge  the  hors,  yf  I  be  a  wiche,  that  thou  com  forthe 
of  the  chilld."  And  then  another  by  her  sperit  to  doe  the  like;  and  so  till 
all  had  doone.  Yf  anny  of  them  woolld  speake  a  woord  contrary  to  that 
charm,  he  shold  be  myghtyly  tormented;  but,  if  he3  would  speake  as  he  had 
first  directed  them,  at  the  end  of  the  last  he  woolld  fall  out  of  his  fit  as 
quyetly  as  if  one  did  lay  him  doune  to  slepe.  For  the  rest,  I  leave  till  it 
please  God  we  meete.    Leicester,  the  18th  of  July,  1616. 

Your  loving  brother, 

ROBART   HEYRICKE. 

Smith,  it  will  be  noted,  is  described  by  Heyrick  as  "a  younge 
gentellman  of  the  adge  of  12  or  13  years  old."  This  fits  the  words 
of  our  text.  The  recency  of  the  occurrence  is  indicated  by  the  phrase 
which  Meercraft  uses,  "but  t'other  day."  This  phrase  rules  out  the 
Boy  of  Burton  (1596)4  and  the  Boy  of  Northwich  (1601  and  1602),5 
and  leaves  young  Smith  alone  in  the  field. 

Heyrick's  letter  enables  us  to  identify  the  pretended  demoniac 
as  a  nephew  of  Henry  Smith,  lecturer  at  St.  Clement  Danes,  apos- 
trophized by  Nashe  in  Piers  Penniless  (1592)  as  " silver-tongued" 

1  A  misreading  for  fullemar  (a  foumart  or  polecat), 
a  Clearly  a  misreading  for  tode. 

*  Probably  we  should  read  she. 

*  This  was  Thomas  Darling  of  Burton-on- Trent,  who  was  exorcised  in  1596  by  the 
famous  John  Darrel.  He  was  about  fourteen  years  old.  Jonson  mentions  him  in  V, 
3,  7,  in  connection  with  other  supposed  demoniacs  relieved  by  "little  Darrel's  tricks." 
See  Harsnet,  Discovery  of  the  Fraudulent  Practises  of  Iohn  Darrel,  1599,  pp.  2,  22,  37,  28; 
Darrel,  Detection  of  S.  Harshnet,  1600,  pp.  9-11,  16,  38-40,  etc.;  Darrel,  Doctrin  of  the 
Possession,  etc.  (appended  to  his  True  Narration,  1600),  pp.  6  fl.,  11  ff.,  26,  38. 

*  This  was  Thomas  Harrison,  of  Northwich  in  Cheshire.  Deacon  and  Walker  dis- 
cuss the  case  in  their  Summarie  Answere  to  Darrel,  1601,  pp.  70  ff.  Darrel,  in  A  Survey 
of  Certaine  Dialogical  Discourses,  1602,  p.  54,  says  that  the  boy  is  "at  this  present  very 
greuously  vexed  by  Sathan."  See  particularly  John  Bruen's  memoranda  in  William 
Hinde's  Life  of  Bruen  (Samuel  Clarke's  Marrow  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  Part  II,  Book  ii, 
2d  ed.,  1675,  pp.  94-96) ;  cf.  also  Thomas  Cooper,  The  Mystery  of  Witch-craft,  1617,  sig. 
A  3.  Gifford  (after  exploding  Whalley's  suggestion  of  the  Boy  of  Bilson  on  the  con- 
vincing ground  that  his  fraud  was  four  years  after  Jonson  wrote  the  play)  advanced 
the  erroneous  suggestion  that  Jonson  was  referring  to  Thomas  Harrison.  But  Harrison's 
is  far  too  early  a  case:  1602  was  not  "t'other  day"  in  1616. 

198 


King  James  I  and  The  Devil  Is  an  Ass  5 

Smith,1  one  of  the  most  famous  preachers  of  the  late  sixteenth 
century.  The  family  was  old,  rich,  and  of  high  standing  among  the 
gentry.2  The  boy's  grandfather,  Erasmus  Smith,  had  married  for 
his  second  wife  a  sister  of  the  great  Lord  Burghley.  The  boy's 
father,  Roger  (afterwards  Sir  Roger3)  Smith,  had  many  children,  one 
pi  whom,  Erasmus,  at  this  time  about  six  years  old,  became  a  dis- 
tinguished educational  benefactor;  he  was  an  ancestor  of  the  present 
Earls  of  Derby  (who  from  1776  to  1869  bore  the  surname  of  Smith- 
Stanley).4  The  demoniac's  Christian  name  is  not  mentioned,  but  an 
inspection  of  the  Smith  pedigree  suffices  to  identify  him,  with  con- 
siderable probability,  as  the  eldest  of  Roger  Smith's  children  by  his 
second  wife — namely  John  Smith,  who  died  unmarried  at  the  age 
of  forty.5  This  identification  becomes  practically  certain  when  we 
observe  that  there  is  a  document  at  Belvoir  Castle  (referred  to  July, 
1610)  containing  "an  account  partly  taken  from  the  depositions 
of  Sir  Henry  Hastings,  the  High  Sheriff,  of  the  bewitching  of  John 
Smith  by  Randall  and  other  witches."6  Sir  Henry  Hastings  was 
Sheriff  of  Leicestershire  for  one  year  only — the  fifth  of  James  I 
(1607-8)  .7  If  John  Smith  was  thirteen  years  old  in  1616,  he 
must  have  been  a  child  of  four  or  five  when  these  earlier  depositions 
were  taken  before  Hastings.  Manifestly  he  suffered  from  hystero- 
epilepsy,  of  which  lying  and  imposture  are  well-recognized  symptoms. 

1  Works,  ed.  McKerrow,  1, 192.  Nashe  labels  the  paragraph  "  Encomium  H.  Smithi." 
Smith  had  died  in  the  preceding  year  (1591).  Fuller  also  testifies  to  the  epithet  "silver- 
tongued"  as  applied  to  this  eloquent  preacher  (Life,  prefixed  to  Smith's  Sermons). 

2  A  good  account  of  the  Smith  (originally  Herez)  family,  with  pedigrees,  may  be 
found  in  Nichols,  Leicestershire,  II,  i,  180-85,  389-92.  See  also  the  pedigree  in  the 
Visitation  of  the  County  of  Leicester  in  1619  (Harleian  Society,  II),  pp.  66-67.  Henry 
Smith,  the  preacher,  and  his  nephew  Erasmus  are  included  in  the  Dictionary  of  National 
Biography. 

*  He  was  knighted  at  Whitehall  in  1635,  and  died  in  1655,  at  the  age  of  84  (Nichols, 
II,  i,  180,  185). 

4  Doyle,  Official  Baronage,  I,  563-65. 

5  Sir  Roger  Smith's  second  wife,  Ann  Goodman,  of  London,  who  died  in  1652,  aged 
66,  had  issue  by  him  "  sonns  and  daughters  twentie-two ' '  according  to  her  epitaph  (Nichols , 
II,  i,  181).  Nobody  has  hitherto  attempted  to  identify  the  demoniac  among  this  wilder- 
ness of  offspring,  but  it  is  quite  certain  that  he  was  one  of  the  children  of  this  second 
marriage  and  that  he  was  older  than  his  brother  Erasmus — and  John  is  the  only  person 
in  the  pedigree  who  satisfies  both  conditions. 

•  Manuscripts  of  the  Earl  of  Rutland,  I,  422  (Commission  on  Historical  Manuscripts, 
Twelfth  Report,  Appendix,  Part  IV).  The  document  is  dated  "July."  The  year  is 
supplied  by  the  cataloguer,  on  what  grounds  I  do  not  know.  The  year  of  Sir  Henry 
Hastings's  shrievalty  settles  the  date  of  the  phenomena. 

T  Nichols,  Leicestershire,  I,  641. 

199 


6  G.    L.    KlTTREDGE 

The  suspicion  of  witchcraft  which  his  fits  excited  in  1607  or  1608 
does  not  appear  to  have  resulted  in  any  convictions.  But  in  1616, 
as  we  learn  from  Heyrick,  his  disease  brought  about  the  death  of 
nine  alleged  witches.  Probably  the  malady  lasted  as  long  as  he 
lived,  for,  as  we  have  seen,  he  never  married  and  he  died  at  a  com- 
paratively early  age. 

Sir  Henry  Hastings,  we  observe,  is  mentioned  in  Heyrick' s  letter 
of  July  18, 1616,  as  interested  in  the  witch  trials  of  that  year.  Doubt- 
less (as  on  the  previous  occasion)  some  of  the  depositions  were 
taken  before  him  as  Justice  of  the  Peace.  It  is  interesting  to  notice 
that  this  is  true  also  of  a  part  of  the  evidence  in  the  trial  of  Margaret 
and  Philip  (i.e.,  Philippa)  Flower,  who  were  hanged  in  1619  for 
bewitching  to  death  two  children  of  the  Earl  of  Rutland.1  Sir 
Henry  was  a  man  of  importance.  He  was  a  grandson  of  the  Earl 
of  Huntingdon,  and  his  seat  was  at  Braunston,  Leicestershire.2 

It  is  natural  that  the  second  accusation  of  witchcraft  (in  1616) 
should  have  had  a  more  sinister  outcome  than  the  first  (in  1607  or 
1608).  For  John  Smith  was  now  old  enough  not  only  to  make 
definite  charges  against  particular  persons,  but  to  supply  details  and 
play  tricks  with  that  subtlety  which  is  an  effect  and  a  symptom  of 
his  disease.  And  in  the  meantime  he  had  of  course  learned  much 
about  witchcraft  phenomena  from  the  talk  of  his  elders.  We  may 
feel  confident  that  he  had  heard,  for  example,  of  the  afflicted  Throck- 
morton girls,  of  Warboys  in  Huntingdonshire,  who  also  belonged 
to  a  distinguished  county  family,  and  whose  case  had  received  wide 
currency.  The  charm  which  Heyrick  says  the  accused  were  made 
to  repeat  ("I  such  a  one  charge  the  horse,  if  I  be  a  witch,  that  thou 
come  forth  of  the  child")  is  patterned  after  a  formula  devised  by  the 
hysterical  Throckmorton  girls  and  used  in  the  Warboys  trials  ("As 
I  am  a  Witch,  and  did  consent  to  the  death  of  the  Lady  Cromwell, 
so  I  charge  the  deuil  to  suffer  Mistress  lane  to  come  out  of  her  fit 
at  this  present")- 3    As  in  the  Warboys  case,  the  officers  of  the  law 

1  The  Wonderfull  Discoverie  of  The  Witch-crafts  of  Margaret  and  Philip  Flower,  1619, 
slg.  C  3. 

*  Sir  Henry  Hastings  of  Braunston,  Knight,  was  the  son  of  Walter  Hastings,  Esq., 
of  Kirby  and  Braunston,  who  was  the  sixth  son  of  Francis,  Earl  of  Huntingdon.  Sir 
Henry  was  M.P.  for  the  County  of  Leicester  in  18  James  I,  and  again  in  1626.  He 
died  in  September,  1649.  See  Nichols,  Leicestershire,  I,  456,  461;  III,  ii,  608;  IV,  ii, 
610,  612,  617-19,  627. 

*  The  Witches  of  Warboys,  1593,  sig.  P.  2  r°. 

200 


King  James  I  and  The  Devil  Is  an  Ass  7 

were  doubtless  inclined  to  give  readier  credence  to  persons  of  the 
intelligence  and  social  position  of  the  Smiths  than  they  would  have 
given  to  ignorant  villagers  or  farm-laborers. 

The  women  to  whose  malice  poor  John  Smith  ascribed  his  affliction 
in  1616  were  tried  in  that  year  at  the  July  assizes  at  Leicester, 
before  Sir  Humphrey  Winch  (Justice  of  the  Common  Pleas)  and 
Serjeant  (Sir  Randal  or  Ranulph)  Crew.  Nine  were  duly  convicted, 
and  they  were  hanged  on  the  18th.1 

Almost  exactly  a  month  later,  King  James  visited  Leicester  in  the 
course  of  a  royal  progress.  He  remained  there  only  a  single  day 
(arriving  on  August  15th  and  leaving  the  town  on  the  16th).2  But  he 
found  leisure  for  a  humane  and  enlightened  act.  Young  Smith  was 
still  having  his  fits,  and  six  more  witches  were  in  prison,  awaiting 
the  autumn  assizes.3  James  had  long  been  skeptical  about  such 
matters,  and  he  prided  himself  on  exposing  sham  demoniacs  and 
other  impostors.  He  called  the  boy  before  him  and  soon  detected 
the  fraud.  But  there  was  not  time  to  sift  the  matter  to  the  bottom. 
Accordingly,  the  king  sent  young  Smith  to  Archbishop  Abbot  at 
Lambeth  for  further  examination,  with  the  result  that  he  made  a 
full  confession  of  his  tricks.  Abbot  then  sent  the  boy  to  the  king, 
before  whom  he  made  a  complete  exhibition  of  his  imposture.4 
Accordingly,  on  or  about  October  15,  1616,  by  a  writ  to  the  High 
Sheriff  of  Leicestershire,  the  five  witches  still  in  custody  were  released 
without  a  trial — the  sixth  had  died  in  the  meantime.5 

As  to  Justice  Winch  and  Serjeant  Crew,  we  have  the  best  possible 
evidence  that  they  incurred  the  royal  displeasure  for  their  part  in 
the  affair.      " Justice  Winch  ....   and  Serjeant  Crew,"   writes 

i  Heyrick's  letter  of  July  18,  1616;  Chamberlain  to  Carleton  (Nichols,  Progresses  of 
James  I,  III,  192-93).     Cf.  Poss,  Judges  of  England,  VI,  202. 

2  The  king  was  on  his  way  toward  Windsor.  He  spent  the  night  of  August  14th  at 
Nottingham,  where  he  remained  for  one  night  only.  On  the  15th  he  went  to  Leicester. 
After  passing  the  night  there,  he  went  to  Dingley  on  the  16th  (Nichols,  Progresses,  III, 
180,  186;  cf.  Ill,  175). 

»  Heyrick's  letter  of  October,  1616  (see  n.  5,  below).  Cf.  Osborne,  I,  30;  Chamber- 
lain to  Carleton,  October  12,  1616. 

*  Osborne,  I,  30-31. 

« Letter  of  Robert  Heyrick  to  Sir  William  Heyrick  (Nichols,  Leicestershire,  II, 
ii,  471*): 

I  received  your  letter  yesterday,  dated  the  10th  of  October,  1616;  for  which  I 
thank  you  hartily,  for  I  thought  yt  long  since  I  hard  any  thinge  from  you;  for  anny 
news  I  heare  but  from  you  I  account  it  but  uncertayne.      I  am  desyrous  to  signefye  unto 

201 


8  G.    L.    KlTTREDGE 

Secretary  Chamberlain  to  Sir  Dudley  Carleton  on  October  12,  1616, 
"are  somewhat  discountenanced  for  hanging  certain  Witches  in  their 
circuit  at  Leicester;  whereas  the  king,  coming  that  way,  found  out 
the  juggling  and  imposture  of  the  boy,  that  counterfeited  to  be 
bewitched."1 

All  these  facts  throw  light  on  Jonson's  famous  demoniac  scene  in 
The  Devil  Is  an  Ass  (V,  viii),  in  which  the  justice,  Sir  Paul  Eitherside, 
witnesses  Fitzdottrel's  pretended  fit  of  possession  and  is  convinced 
that  he  is  suffering  from  witchcraft.  It  is  no  longer  possible  to 
identify  Sir  Paul  with  Coke,  even  "  partially,"  as  Dr.  W.  S.  Johnson 
does.2  So  far  as  the  satire  is  personal,  it  is  manifestly  aimed  at  Sir 
Humphrey  Winch,  the  judge  who  had  presided  at  the  Leicester 
witch  trials  in  July,  when  the  Smith  boy  played  his  tricks  successfully 
in  the  presence  of  the  bench.  We  should  note,  by  the  way,  that  Sir 
Paul  Eitherside  is  not  treated  contumeliously  by  Jonson.  When 
Fitzdottrel  confesses,  and  Manly  says  to  the  justice,  "Are  you  not 
asham'd  now  of  your  solemn,  serious  vanity  [i.e.,  foolishness]?'1 
Sir  Paul  answers,  like  a  dignified  and  conscientious  gentleman,  "I 
will  make  honorable  amends  to  truth."3 

The  Smith  boy,  as  we  have  seen,  had  been  sent  to  Archbishop 
Abbot  about  August  15th,  1616.     The  archbishop's  men,  so  Osborne 

you  of  the  Witches,  but  it  must  be  in  my  next;  for  they  be  but  this  day,  as  I  am  informed, 
examyned  before  Mr.  Mair  and  the  Justisis,  and  Docktor  Lambe,  in  our  Town-hall; 
and  to-morrow  I  shall  know  the  substaunce  of  the  matter;  and  then  you  shall  here  how 
the  matter  goes  w*  them.  So,  with  my  love  and  hartyest  salutatyons  to  yourself  and 
my  Lady  doone,  I  leave  you  to  the  Most  Highest.     Leicester,  the  15th  of  October. 

Your  loving  brother, 

ROBART    HbYRICKE. 

Since  wryting  of  the  above,  the  under  sherive,  by  a  warrant  directed  to  the  highe- 
sherive,  hathe  set  the  5  Witches  at  liberty;   the  sixt  is  ded  in  the  gayle. 

1  Nichols,  Progresses  of  James  I,  III,  192-93  (cf.  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic, 
1611-1618,  p.  398).  Mr.  Inderwick,  whose  essay  on  Witchcraft  in  his  Side- Lights  on 
the  Stuarts  contains  much  valuable  material  along  with  a  great  variety  of  curious  errors, 
gives  an  oddly  distorted  account  of  the  Leicester  affair.  He  says  that  it  was  on  October 
12  that  James  discovered  the  imposture  of  the  "boys,"  and  that  "some  time  afterwards, 
.  .  .  .  certain  witches  were  tried  for  this  very  witchcraft,  and,  being  convicted, 
were  hanged  by  order  of  Justice  Winch."  "  This,"  adds  Mr.  Inderwick,  "  was  considered 
so  impertinent  an  invasion  of  the  king's  prerogative,  that  the  judge  was  disgraced  for 
having  allowed  the  case  to  be  tried  after  the  king  himself  had  decided  it"  (2d  ed.t  1891, 
p.  150). 

8  "It  is  certain  that  Coke  is  partially  responsible  for  this  portraiture 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  improbable  that  the  picture  was  aimed  exclusively  at  Coke* 
(W.  S.  Johnson,  The  Devil  Is  an  Ass,  1905,  p.  lxxii,  Yale  Studies  in  English,  XXIX). 
Fleay's  identification  of  Coke  with  Fitzdottrel  (Biographical  Chronicle,  I,  382-83)  had 
already  been  properly  rejected  by  Johnson  as  a  patent  absurdity. 

» V,  viii,  145-47. 

202 


King  James  I  and  !Ttf#  Devil  Is  an  Ass  9 

informs  us,  brought  him  to  a  full  confession,  at  Lambeth,  "in  a  few 
weeks."  "He  was  sent  back  to  his  Majesty,"  continues  Osborne, 
"before  the  end  of  the  Progress;  where,  upon  a  small  entreaty,  he 
would  repeat  all  his  Tricks  often  times  in  a  Day."1  These  exhibitions 
must  have  taken  place  at  Windsor  between  the  3d  and  the  17th  of 
September,  the  progress  ending  on  the  latter  date.2  Their  first  result 
was  the  "discountenancing"  of  Winch  and  Crew,  of  which  Chamber- 
lain speaks  in  his  letter  of  October  12th.  Their  second  result  was  the 
examination  of  the  surviving  witches  at  Leicester  before  the  Mayor,3 
certain  justices,  and  Dr.  Lambe,  on  October  15th,  and  their  release 
either  on  that  day  or  soon  after.4  Dr.  John  Lambe's  presence  is 
significant.  He  was  an  eminent  ecclesiastical  jurist  and  was  vicar 
of  the  Bishop  of  Peterborough,  in  whose  diocese  Leicester  is  included.5 
Doubtless  he  attended  the  examination  because  of  instructions  from 
Lambeth.  If  Winch  sat  on  the  bench  at  this  session,  he  probably 
used  the  opportunity  (in  Justice  Eitherside's  phrase)  to  "make 
honorable  amends  to  truth."  The  "discountenancing"  of  Winch 
and  Crew  was  not  serious,  no  doubt  because  the  king's  justifiable 
self-satisfaction  at  his  own  cleverness  and  its  fortunate  issue  over- 
weighed  his  anger.  On  the  7th  of  October,  it  was  rumored  at 
St.  James's  that  Crew  was  to  succeed  Coke  as  chief-justice.6  It  is 
safe  to  infer  that  the  royal  disfavor  became  known  at  court 
between  October  7  and  October  12  (the  date  on  which  Chamberlain 
reported  it  to  Carleton).  Between  these  two  dates  the  king 
probably  expressed  his  feelings  by  some  snub  in  word  or  act. 
My  suggestion,  therefore,  that  Jonson's  demoniac  scene  alludes 

»  Osborne,  I,  30-31. 

1  Windsor  was  the  last  gest  of  the  progress.  The  king  was  to  arrive  there  on  August 
29,  and  to  remain  "during  pleasure"  (Nichols,  III,  180).  In  fact,  however,  he  did  not 
reach  Windsor  until  after  September  3,  for  Chamberlain  writes  to  Carleton  on  that  day 
that  he  "keeps  much  about  Windsor,  though  he  has  not  yet  been  there."  On  the  7th 
he  was  at  Windsor,  and  he  remained  until  the  15th  or  16th  (Nichols,  III,  188-90;  Calendar 
of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1611-1618,  p.  392;  Venetian,  1615-1617,  pp.  290,  297,  301). 
On  the  17th  he  was  at  Theobalds,  and  the  progress  was  finished  (Nichols,  III,  190;  cf. 
Calendar,  Domestic,  pp.  392,  394). 

» The  Mayor  of  Leicester  was  Thomas  Herrick  (Ericke)  (Nichols,  Leicestershire, 
I,  425). 

4  Heyrick's  October  letter. 

6  Sir  John  Lambe  took  the  degree  of  LL.D.  at  Cambridge  in  1616.  Heyrick  calls 
him  by  his  new  title.     For  Lambe's  life  see  Dictionary  of  National  Biography. 

8  Henry  Lord  Danvers  to  Carleton  {Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1611-1618, 
p.  397.) 

203 


10  G.    L.    KlTTREDGE 

to  the  Smith  affair  makes  it  necessary  to  assign  the  composition 
of  that  scene  to  the  latter  part  of  October  or  thereabout.  Let  us 
see  if  this  date  accords  with  other  evidence. 

We  know  that  the  play  was  first  performed  in  1616. x  The  time 
occupied  falls  within  the  limits  of  a  single  day.  Pug,  the  fiend, 
assumes  the  hanged  cutpurse's  body  in  the  morning,  and  is  carried 
off  to  hell  by  Iniquity,  the  vice,  that  same  night.2  In  settling  the 
date  of  production,  we  are  justified  in  using  whatever  indications  of 
the  season  of  the  year  are  afforded  by  the  text,  for  the  day  on  which 
the  events  of  the  drama  occur  is  identified,  by  Jonson  himself,  with 
the  actual  day  on  which  it  was  first  acted.  This  appears  from  the 
following  passage,  in  which  Wittipol  is  speaking  of  Fitzdottrel: 

Yes,  that's  a  hir'd  suit  he  now  has  on, 
To  see  The  Devil  Is  an  Ass  to-day  in.3 

Two  bits  of  internal  evidence  are  available.  (1)  In  V,  ii,  39, 
Pug  remarks,  "If  we  can  get  a  wigeon,  'tis  in  season."  This  points 
to  the  time  of  year  when  wigeons  are  procurable,  but  not  yet  a  glut 
in  the  market.  These  birds  make  their  appearance  in  England  about 
the  middle  or  end  of  September  or  early  in  October.4  (2)  In  III,  vi, 
2-4,  Pitfall  says: 

Canst  thou  get  ne'er  a  bird  ? 
No  thrushes  hungry  ?    Stay  till  cold  weather  come, 
I'll  help  thee  to  an  ousel  or  a  fieldfare. 

Fieldfares  arrive  in  England  early  in  October.  They  are  very  shy 
birds,6  however,  and  not  until  there  is  snow,  or  a  severe  frost,  can 
one  readily  get  within  gunshot  of  them.  Then  they  seek  the 
uplands,  to  feed  upon  the  hedges,  and  become  not  only  in  better 

1  The  year  is  mentioned  in  so  many  words  in  I,  i,  80-81. 

*  Cf.  I,  i,  with  V,  vi-vii.     See  especially  I,  i,  133-50;   V,  vi,  5-10,  48-49;   V,  vii,  5. 

»I,  iv,  20-21.     Cf.  also  the  following  passages: 

"Fitzdottrel Art  thou  sure 

The  play  is  play'd  to-day?    Ingine.    O,  here's  the  bill,  sir. 
I  had  forgot  to  gi't  you.     Fitz.     Ha!  the  Devil!"  (I,  iv,  42-44) 
"To-day  I  go  to  the  Blackfriars  playhouse."  (I,  vi,  31) 

«  F.  O.  Morris,  History  of  British  Birds,  VII,  29-30;  Yarrell,  History  of  British  Birds, 
2d  ed.,  1845,  III,  287;    Macgillivray,  History  of  British  Birds,  1852,  V,  87-88. 

•It  is  the  fieldfare's  shyness  that  gives  point  to  the  proverbial  "farwel  feldefare" 
(Troilus,  iii,  861),  i.e.,  "the  bird  has  flown."  Cf.  Middleton,  Anything  for  a  Quiet  Life, 
I,  ii,  264  ff.  (Bullen,  V,  255):  "When  I  studied  there  [at  Cambridgel,  I  had  so  fan- 
tastical a  brain  that,  like  a  felfare  frighted  in  winter  by  a  birding-piece,  I  could  settle 
nowhere;  here  and  there,  a  little  of  several  art,  and  away." 

204 


King  James  I  and  The  Devil  Is  an  Ass  11 

condition  as  to  flesh  and  flavor,  but  also  easier  to  approach.1  Nicholas 
Cox,  in  The  Gentleman's  Recreation,  instructs  his  reader  thus :  "About 
Michaelmas  [September  29],  or  when  the  cold  weather  begins  to 
come  in,  take  your  Gun  and  kill  some  Feldfares."2 

Pitfall's  remark,3  then,  would  not  be  appropriate  later  than  about 
the  first  of  November,  and  would  certainly  fit  the  middle  or  latter 
part  of  October  in  any  ordinary  season.  That  cold  weather  has  not 
yet  come  is  shown  also  by  the  fact  that,  when  Ambler  complains 
that  he  had  to  walk  barefoot  from  the  neighborhood  of  the  Lord 
Mayor's  Banqueting  House  to  St.  Giles's,  he  says  nothing  about 
suffering  from  inclement  weather.4 

Both  pieces  of  internal  evidence  are  consistent,  it  appears,  with 
our  fixing  the  date  of  the  first  performance  as  about  the  middle  or 
end  of  October. 

Further,  when  Pug  has  been  arrested  and  taken  to  Newgate, 
Iniquity  visits  his  cell,  with  a  message  from  the  Great  Devil: 

H'  hath  sent  thee  grant-paroll  by  me  to  stay  longer 
A  month  here  on  earth. 

"How?"  cries   Pug,  "longer  here  a  month?"      And  the  dialogue 

proceeds: 

Iniquity.  Yes,  boy,  till  the  session, 
That  so  thou  mayest  have  a  triumphal  egression. 
Pug.    In  a  cart,  to  be  hang'd!5 

That  is,  in  a  month  there  is  to  be  a  session  of  jail  delivery,  at  which 
Pug  will  be  tried  for  theft.  There  was  usually  such  a  session  for 
Middlesex  early  in  September,  early  in  October,  and  early  in  Decem- 
ber, but  none  in  November.  If,  then,  the  date  of  performance 
(which,  we  remember,  corresponds  with  that  of  the  action)  is  the 

*W.  B.  Daniel,  Rural  Sports,  1807,  III,  149,  note;  Morris,  III,  171-72;  Bewick's 
History  of  British  Birds,  1804,  I,  103;  Col.  G.  Montagu,  Ornithological  Dictionary,  ed. 
Rennie,  1831,  pp.  180-81.  Chaucer  speaks  of  "the  frosty  feldefare"  (Parliament  of 
Fowls,  vs.  364);   cf.  Skeat  on  Troilus,  iii,  861  (Oxford  Chaucer,  II,  479). 

* 3d  ed.,  1686,  Part  II,  p.  129. 

3  Pitfall  is  punning  on  bird  in  the  sense  of  "loose  woman"  (cf.  Mod.  Philol.,  VII, 
475-77),  but  the  season  is  indicated  all  the  same.  Charles  Carter,  in  his  Compleat  City 
and  Country  Cook,  1732,  plates  44,  45,  reckons  wigeons  among  the  birds  in  season  in 
September,  October,  and  November;  fieldfares,  among  those  in  season  in  December, 
January,  and  February. 

«  V,  i,  26-47.  s  v,  vi,  19-23. 

205 


12  G.    L.    KlTTREDGE 

latter  part  of  October,  the  next  session  will  fall  early  in  December 
— that  is,  in  round  numbers,  about  a  month  hence.1 

Thus  it  appears  that  all  the  internal  evidence  either  points 
directly  to  the  latter  part  of  October  (or  thereabout)  as  the  date  of 
presentation,  or  agrees  with  that  date.  Indeed,  no  other  date  will 
satisfy  all  the  conditions.  When  Jonson  began  to  write  the  play  we 
cannot  tell,  but  it  seems  quite  clear  that  he  finished  it  shortly  before 
it  was  produced.  There  is  nothing  in  the  internal  evidence  that 
conflicts  in  any  way  with  the  view  which  I  have  expressed,  namely, 
that  the  demoniac  scene  in  the  fifth  act  was  written  with  an  eye  to 
the  Leicester  case,  to  the  king's  detection  of  the  imposture,  and  to 
the  royal  displeasure  manifested  at  the  precipitancy  and  credulity 
of  Justice  Winch. 

The  demoniac  scene,  indeed,  is  by  no  means  necessary  to  the  plot, 
which  might  just  as  well  be  wound  up  without  it.  Its  connection 
with  the  structure  of  the  drama  is  very  loose.  Probably  Jonson 
inserted  it  at  the  last  minute,  after  the  "discountenancing"  of  Winch 
and  Crew  (mentioned  in  Chamberlain's  letter  of  October  12)  had 
become  the  talk  of  the  court  and  the  town.  We  may  conjecture 
that  he  was  on  the  point  of  finishing  his  play  when  the  matter  came 
to  his  attention,  and  that  he  found  it  too  apposite  to  his  general 
satirical  purpose  to  be  disregarded. 

The  results  of  our  investigations  are  not  trivial,  for  they  have  a 
direct  bearing  upon  the  relations  between  Jonson  and  James  I, 
as  well  as  upon  the  status  of  both  poet  and  king  in  the  history  of 
witchcraft.  James  is  commonly  regarded  as  a  frantic  and  bigoted 
witch-prosecutor  during  his  English  reign,  and  Jonson  has  been 
commended  for  his  enlightenment  and  independence  in  taking  the 
other  side.2  In  fact,  however,  James  distinguished  himself,  almost 
from  the  very  beginning  of  his  reign,  as  a  detector  of  fraudulent 
demoniacs,  and  there  is  plenty  of  evidence  that  he  did  not  encourage 

»  As  a  matter  of  fact  there  were  ten  Old  Bailey  sessions  of  jail  delivery  in  1616 — on 
January  12,  February  20,  March  15,  April  12,  May  16,  June  26,  August  1,  September 
6,  October  4,  and  December  4  (Middlesex  Court  Records,  ed.  by  J.  C.  Jeaffreson,  II, 
218-19). 

*  See,  for  example,  Aronstein,  Ben  Jonson,  1906,  p.  164  (Schick  and  v.  Waldberg, 
Literaturhistorische  Forschungen,  XXXIV) :  "  Manner  wie  Bacon  und  Raleigh  zweifelten 
nlcht  an  der  Existenz  von  Hexen,  und  Jakob  I.  hatte  bekanntlich  selbst  ein  Werk  tiber 
Damonologie  geschrieben.  Um  so  hoher  ist  es  dem  Dichter  anzurechnen,  dass  er  es 
gewagt  hat,  in  seinem  Lustspiele  diesen  Aberglauben  kuhn  zu  verspotten." 

206 


King  James  I  and  The  Devil  Is  an  Ass  13 

the  prosecution  of  witches.  On  the  contrary,  though  he  believed  in 
witchcraft  in  general,  it  is  quite  certain  that  he  was  disposed  to  be 
skeptical  with  regard  to  particular  examples,  and  his  English  reign  is 
by  no  means  a  dark  and  bloody  period  in  the  annals  of  this  terrible 
delusion.1  In  undertaking  to  write  a  comedy  satirizing  witchcraft, 
Jonson  was  not  braving  the  king's  wrath:  he  was  acting  in  perfect 
accord  with  what  he  knew  to  be  the  king's  sentiments,  and  he  must 
have  felt  sure  of  his  approval.  James  and  he  were  not  on  different 
sides  in  this  question;  they  were  on  the  same  side.2  When,  therefore, 
as  Jonson  was  completing  his  play,  a  remarkable  instance  of  the 
king's  acumen  occurred,  resulting  in  the  rescue  of  five  suspected 
witches,  the  poet  welcomed  the  opportunity  of  paying  a  well-deserved 
compliment  to  his  royal  patron.  He  inserted  a  scene  of  sham 
demoniacal  possession,  and  pointed  the  compliment  by  satirizing  the 
justice  whose  credulity  the  king  had  reproved. 

This  was  not  the  first  time  that  Jonson  had  gratified  the  king  by 
such  a  compliment.  There  is  a  counterfeit  demoniac  in  Volpone, 
the  advocate  Voltore,  who  has  spasms  and  pretends  to  vomit  pins.3 
Volpone  was  acted  early  in  1606.  Shortly  before,  King  James  had 
exposed  the  imposture  "of  a  woman  pretended  to  be  bewitched,  that 
cast  up  at  her  mouth  pynnes,  and  pynnes  were  taken  by  divers  in 
her  fitts  out  of  her  brest."4 

»  For  the  evidence  in  full,  see  Kittredge,  English  Witchcraft  and  James  I.  Gifford, 
in  1827,  printed  a  brief  but  powerful  defence  of  James  in  his  edition  of  Ford,  I,  clxxi- 
clxxv,  clxxix-clxxx  (Dyce's  edition,  1869,  III,  273-76;  Bullen's  edition,  1895,  III,  273-76). 
He  called  attention  to  Osborne  and  to  Chamberlain's  letter  of  October  12,  1616,  but  did 
not  perceive  the  connection  of  the  Leicester  case  with  The  Devil  Is  an  Ass. 

2  We  may  note,  by  the  way,  that  alchemy  (satirized  by  Jonson  in  The  Alchemist, 
1610)  was  likewise  a  subject  on  which  King  James  was  skeptical.  In  1620  he  made  some 
acute  criticisms  on  the  alchemists'  fallacious  reasoning,  to  say  nothing  of  a  highly  char- 
acteristic jest  (King  James  His  Apopthegmes,  1643,  pp.  7-8). 

s  V,  xii,  8  fl. 

4  Journal  of  Sir  Roger  Wilbraham,  1593-1616,  ed.  by  H.  S.  Scott,  p.  70  (Camden 
Miscellany,  X).  Sir  Roger  mentions  the  case  along  with  that  of  Richard  Haydock,  the 
Sleeping  Preacher,  of  New  College,  Oxford  who  (as  we  know)  was  exposed  by  King 
James  in  April,  1605.  Walter  Yonge  also  mentions  Haydock's  exposure,  and  couples 
with  it  the  following  item,  which  must  refer  to  the  demoniac  woman  of  whom  Wilbraham 
speaks:  "This  year  there  was  a  gentlewoman  and  near  kinswoman  to  Doctor  Holland's 
wife,  Rector  of  Exon  College  in  Oxford,  strangely  possessed  and  bewitched,  so  that  in 
her  fits  she  cast  out  of  her  nose  and  mouth  pins  in  great  abundance,  and  did  divers  other 
things  very  strange  to  be  reported"  (Diary  of  Walter  Yonge,  ed.  by  George  Roberts, 
Camden  Society,  1848,  p.  12).  By  "this  year"  Yonge  seems  to  mean  1606,  for  the  entry 
immediately  preceding  is  dated  "An.  D.  1605-1606."  But,  since  he  refers  Haydock's 
case  to  "this  year  also,"  we  are  safe  in  dating  the  bewitching  of  Dr.  Holland's  wife's 

207 


14  G.    L.    KlTTREDGE 

Many  students  have  been  puzzled  to  understand  why  Jonson, 
after  receiving  a  royal  grant  of  a  hundred  marks  a  year  for  life  in 
February,  1616,1  should  have  seized  the  earliest  opportunity  to  insult 
the  king  by  ridiculing  witchcraft  in  The  Devil  Is  an  Ass.  Nor  has 
their  perplexity  been  diminished  by  observing  that  the  insult  caused 
no  interruption  in  the  king's  favor,  inasmuch  as  Jonson  was  employed 
to  write  a  Christmas  masque  at  the  end  of  the  same  year.  It  now 
appears  that  The  Devil  Is  an  Ass  was  not  an  insult,  but  a  compliment, 
so  that  all  grounds  for  perplexity  are  happily  removed. 

Ben  Jonson,  as  is  well  known,  gave  Drummond  a  brief  account 
of  The  Devil  Is  an  Ass  in  1619.     The  passage  is  as  follows: 

A  play  of  his,  upon  which  he  was  accused,  The  Divell  is  ane  Ass.  Accord- 
ing to  Comedia  Vetus  in  England,  the  Divell  was  brought  in  either  with  one 
Vice  or  other;  the  play  done,  the  Divel  carried  away  the  Vice.  He  brings 
in  the  Divel  so  overcome  with  the  wickedness  of  this  age  that  thought  him- 
self ane  Ass.  Ilapepyws  is  discoursed  of  the  Duke  of  Drounland.  The 
King  desired  him  to  conceal  it.2 

These  jottings  of  Jonson's  talk  are  rather  tantalizing.  "Whether 
the  subject  which  gave  offense"  was  monoplies  or  witchcraft,  writes 
Dr.  W.  S.  Johnson,  "it  is  impossible  to  determine."3  It  is  clear, 
however,  that  some  person  or  persons  lodged  a  complaint  against 
The  Devil  Is  an  Ass,  and  that  the  king  promised  Jonson  immunity 
if  he  would  not  print  the  play.  As  we  know,  Jonson  did  not  publish 
the  text  until  1631,  six  years  after  James's  death. 

Perhaps  the  complainants  were  Winch  and  Crew;  perhaps  the 
relatives  of  the  young  demoniac.  In  either  case  the  king  may  well 
have  thought  it  best  to  satisfy  the  aggrieved  parties,  and  at  the  same 
time  let  the  poet  off,  by  "desiring"  Jonson  not  to  print  the  drama. 
The  good-natured  monarch  may  have  regarded  the  judges  as  punished 

kinswoman  1605,  or  early  in  the  following  year.  Volpone  is  made  out  by  Mr.  L.  H. 
Holt  to  have  been  presented  between  March  9  and  March  25,  1606  (Modern  Language 
Notes,  XX,  164-65).  Dr.  Thomas  Holland  died  March  17,  1611-12.  He  was  appointed 
Regius  Professor  of  Divinity  at  Oxford  in  1589  and  Rector  of  Exeter  College  in  1592, 
and  held  both  offices  till  his  death  (Wood,  Athenae  Oxonienses,  ed.  Bliss,  II,  111-12; 
Foster,  Alumni  Oxonienses,  II,  731). 

1  Shakspere  Variorum  of  1821,  I,  417,  note. 

*  Jonson' s  Conservations  with  Drummond,  ed.  Laing,  p.  28  (Shakespeare  Society, 
1842).  I  have  regulated  the  punctuation,  which,  as  given  in  the  manuscript,  obscures 
the  sense.     I  have  also  made  the  obvious  correction  of  napepyws  for  napepyovs. 

«  The  Devil  Is  an  Ass,  1905,  p.  lxii. 

208 


King  James  I  and  The  Devil  Is  an  Ass  15 

enough  without  the  further  publicity  of  type.  And  he  would  cer- 
tainly have  considered  the  feelings  of  the  Smith  family,  which  had 
abundant  wealth  and  influence  and  was  highly  connected.  The 
boy's  grandfather,  we  should  remember,  had  married  as  his  second 
wife  a  sister  of  William  Cecil,  the  great  Lord  Burghley,1  and  Burghley 
had  more  than  once  used  his  influence  to  protect  Henry  Smith,  the 
eminent  preacher,2  who  was  the  boy's  uncle.  Burghley's  grandson 
was  now  Earl  of  Salisbury.  Very  likely,  however,  the  accusation  had 
nothing  to  do  with  witchcraft,  but  concerned  rather  the  satire  on 
monopolies,  in  particular  the  draining  of  the  fens,  a  project  of  great 
public  importance,  much  canvassed  in  the  reign  of  James  I. 

At  all  events,  the  language  of  Drummond's  memorandum  shows 
clearly  that  James  protected  Jonson — -not  that  he  censured  or 
punished  him.  And  this  is  what  we  should  expect,  since  the  play, 
as  we  have  seen,  was  of  a  kind  to  give  the  king  much  satisfaction. 

G.    L.    KlTTREDGE 
Harvard  University 
May  11,  1911 

1  She  was  Margery,  "relict  of  Roger  Cave"  (Nichols,  Leicestershire,  II,  i,  185). 
She  married  Cave  on  November  24,  1561  (Fox-Davies,  Genealogy  of  the  Cecils,  in  His- 
torical Monograph,  William  Cecil  Lord  Burghley,  1904,  p.  111).  Henry  Smith  speaks  of 
Brian  Cave,  High  Sheriff  of  Leicestershire,  as  his  uncle  (Three  Sermons,  ed.  1624,  p.  56: 
misprinted  "Cane").  Brian  Cave,  of  Ingarsby,  was  High  Sheriff  of  the  Counties  of 
Leicester  and  Warwick  in  5-6  Philip  and  Mary  (1558),  and  of  Leicestershire  in  11  and 
24  Elizabeth  (1568-69,  1581-82)  (Nichols,  I,  460,  461).  He  died  July  30,  1590  (III,  i, 
280).  Roger  Cave,  of  Stanton-on-Avon,  who  married  Margaret  (or  Margery)  Cecil, 
and  died  in  1586,  was  his  brother,  as  were  also  Sir  Thomas  Cave  of  Stanford-on-Avon, 
and  Sir  Ambrose  Cave,  Chancellor  of  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster  and  one  of  Elizabeth's 
privy  councillors  (II,  ii,  852;  III,  i,  97,  290,  292;  III,  ii,  954;  IV,  i,  351-52,  356).  A 
sister,  Dorothea,  married  John  Smith,  Henry  Smith's  grandfather,  so  that  Brian  Cave 
was  the  preacher's  great-uncle  (Visitation  of  the  County  of  Leicester  in  1619,  pp.  66, 
128,  Harleian  Society,  II). 

*  Fuller's  Life  of  Smith  (Smith's  Sermons,  ed.  1866, 1,  viii);  cf.  C.  H.  and  T.  Cooper, 
Notes  and  Queries,  1st  Series,  VII,  223.  Smith  dedicated  his  collected  Sermons  to  Burgh- 
ley with  an  expression  of  gratitude  ("haec  pignora  in  grati  animi  testimonium";  ed. 
of  1609). 


209 


Percy  and  His  Nancy 


G.  L.  KITTREDGE 


Reprinted  for  private  circulation  from 
The  Manly  Anniversary  Studies  in  Language  and  Literature 


PERCY  AND  HIS  NANCY 

G.   L.   KlTTEEDGE 

Harvard  University 
In  1825  somebody  presented  to  Sheffield  Grace,  a  gentleman  of 
antiquarian  note  in  his  day,  a  little  sheaf  of  Percy  Papers  relating  to 
" 0  Nancy,  will  you  go  with  me?"  and  also  an  exquisite  calligraphic 
copy  of  the  song,  with  Thomas  Carter's  music.  The  inscription, 
so  beautifully  written  that  it  has  been  mistaken  for  engraving,  runs 
as  follows: 

These  interesting  documents  illustrative  of  the  origin  of  the  celebrated 
ballad  Oh  Nanny  wilt  thou  gang  with  me  were  discovered  among  a  collection 
of  MSS  belonging  to  the  late  Bishop  Percy  &  are  now  presented  to  Sheffield 
Grace  Esqr,  F.S.A  In  acknowledgement  of  the  gratification  derived  from 
the  cultivated  taste  and  amiable  feelings  displayed  in  his  Memoirs  of  the 
Family  of  Grace  and  in  testimony  of  sincere  and  lasting  regard  by  his  much 
obliged  Friend  W*.  S.  M. 

I  cannot  identify  W.  S.  M.,  but  he  or  she  may  have  been  a  member  of 
the  Meade  family.1  Grace  immediately  passed  the  gift  along  to  a 
lady  whom  he  addresses  as  "My  dear  Duchess"  in  his  letter  of  presen- 
tation (July  28,  1825),  inserted  in  the  volume.  The  mention  of 
"  Avington"  in  this  letter  proves  that  Grace  was  addressing  his  distant 
kinswoman,  the  first  Duchess  of  Buckingham  and  Chandos.  James 
Brydges,  third  Duke  of  Chandos,  had  died  in  1789,  and  his  title 
died  with  him.  In  1796,  his  sole  heiress,  the  Lady  Anna  Eliza 
Brydges,  married  Richard  Grenville,  whom  George  IV  created  (in 
1822)  Earl  Temple  of  Stowe,  Marquis  of  Chandos,  and  Duke  of 
Buckingham  and  Chandos.     Avington,2  near  Winchester,  had  been 

1  Percy's  second  daughter  (Elizabeth)  married  the  Hon.  and  Rev.  Pierce  Meade, 
son  of  the  Earl  of  Clanwilliam,  in  1801  (see  Play  fair,  British  Family  Antiquity,  IV 
(1810),  Appendix,  p.  xcix) .  The  Graces  were  allied  to  the  Meades  (see  Sheffield  Grace's 
Memoirs  of  the  Family  of  Grace,  p.  83). 

2  Doyle,  Official  Baronage,  I,  264-67,  358;  Cokayne,  Complete  Peerage  (ed.,  Gibbs), 
II,  408-9;  Woodward,  Wilks,  and  Lockhart,  A  General  History  of  Hampshire,  II,  40-48; 
Duthy,  Sketches  of  Hampshire,  [1839,]  pp.  193,  198-200  (with  a  pretty  view  of  Avington 
House  and  the  Itchen);  Annual  Register  for  1848,  Chronicle,  pp.  65-66;  for  1861, 
Chronicle  pp.  408-10.  Avington  was  bought  by  John  Shelley,  the  poet's  younger 
brother,  and  is  now  the  seat  of  the  Shelley  family  (Shelley-Rolls  since  1917). 

204 


PERCY  AND  HIS  NANCY  205 

in  the  Brydges  family  for  generations  and  was  a  part  of  the  Lady 
Anna  Eliza's  inheritance.  Grace  had  already  dedicated  to  this 
same  great  lady  his  Memoirs  of  the  Family  of  Grace,  1823.  It  was 
perhaps  the  fact  that  her  name  was  Anna  that  suggested  this  par- 
ticular gift.  The  duchess  died  in  1836,  the  duke  in  1839.  Their 
son  ran  through  his  property  at  lightning  speed.  Grace's  pretty 
little  volume  of  curiosities  may  have  been  sold  along  with  other 
effects  of  the  second  duke  at  the  time  of  his  deb&cle.  It  has  recently 
been  acquired  by  the  Harvard  College  Library. 

The  following  letters  are  printed  from  this  volume.  The  first 
and  third  are  from  the  originals,  the  second  is  from  Percy's  own  holo- 
graph draft,  which  he  had  preserved.  The  draft  shows  very  interest- 
ing corrections,  which  prove  that  the  bishop  regarded  his  utterances 
on  the  subject  of  his  famous  love  song  as  of  some  moment. 

[Miss  Henrietta  Rhodes  to  Bishop  Percy] 

Bridgnorth 
January  15th 
1801 
My  Lord 

I  am  so  thoroughly  conscious  of  the  numberless  apologies  this  Letter 
requires,  that  I  should  despair  of  receiving  your  forgiveness  for  such  an 
Intrusion,  was  I  not  well  acquainted  with  your  Character,  although  I  have 
not  the  honour  of  being  personally  known  to  you :  I  am  therefore  inclined  to 
hope,  that  my  address  will  rather  excite  a  smile,  than  provoke  your  dis- 
pleasure. 

My  name  will  perhaps  announce  to  you  that  I  am  a  native  of  Bridgnorth; 
a  place  which  boasts  of  your  birth,  no  less  from  your  distinguished  literary 
talents,  than  the  high  station  you  enjoy.  Added  to  the  respect  we  feel  for 
great  and  good  characters,  there  is  naturally  a  portion  of  pride  also  experi- 
enced when  we  consider  ourselves  provincially  interested.  Thus  much  to 
elucidate  the  story  I  have  to  relate. 

In  a  large  company  assembled  at  Mr  Lee's  of  Coton  the  other  Day,  the 
beautifull  Ballad  aO  Nanny  wilt  thou  go  with  me"  was  sung  by  one  of  the 
Party,  and  the  words  were  so  much  admired  that  I  could  not  resist  making 
the  observation  that  they  were  written  by  Dr  Percy,  a  native  of  Bridgnorth. 
A  negative  was  instantly  put  upon  this,  by  every  one  present.  Some  asserted 
it  to  be  Scotch,  and  others  said  they  knew  it  to  have  been  written  at  a  much 
earlier  period  than  you  coud  have  published.  It  was  in  vain  I  protested  that 
I  had  received  it,  as  yours,  from  your  Nephew,  whom  I  have  the  pleasure  of 
knowing,  and  that  I  had  even  written  an  Answer  to  it.  My  opponents 
continued    incredulous,    &    I    in  proportion  became  more  decided.     At 


206  G.  L.  KITTREDGE 

length  Mr  Lee,  and  another  Gentleman  dared  me  to  a  Bett  with  them.  It  is  the 
first  Wager  I  ever  made  in  my  life,  for  I  am  systematically  an  enemy  to  them; 
however  I  have  the  immense  sum  of  three  Guineas  at  stake,  determinable 
only  by  your  Lordship's  avowal  of  being  the  Author.  Whilst  I  intreat  the 
favour  of  a  reply,  suffer  me  to  assure  you,  that  I  am  not  less  anxious  for 
the  honour  of  restoring  the  stolen  branch  of  Bays  to  the  Chaplet  the  Muses 
have  wove  for  you,  than  I  am  to  prove  my  own  claim  to  correctness:  and 
that  I  remain  your  Lordships 

obliged  humble  servan[t] 

Henrietta  Rhodes 

If  Mr  Percy  is  in  your  Neighbourhood  pray  make  my  compliments  to  him 
and  tell  him  I  expect  from  his  friendship  whatever  further  excuses  may  be 
wanting  to  your  Lordship 

[Addressed] 

The  Right  REVd  Bishop  of  Dromoke 

Dromore  House 

Ireland 

[Bishop  Percy  to  Miss  Rhodes] 

Dromore  House,  Feb.  9.  1801 
Madam, 

So  very  obliging  a  Letter  as  yours  ought  to  have  received  an  earlier 
Acknowledgement;  but  the  very  great  indulgence,1  you  have  shown  to  a 
poetical  Escape  of  my  early  youth,  will,  I  trust,  be  extended  to  my  Delay  of 
writing  now,.  wch  has  been  owing  to  the  Interruptions  of  Business.  Graver 
Studies  and  more  important  Persuits  have  so  long  since  weaned  me  from  the 
Seductions  of  the  Muses,  that  I  should2  have  scarce  taken  the  trouble  you 
have  so  kindly  done  to  contest  with  any  opponent  my  original  right  to  it, 
but  if  your  very  flattering  Partiality3  to  it  did  not  tempt  me  to  revive  my 
my  Claim  to  that  little  Juvenile  Production,  it  would  yet  be  in  vain  for  me 
to  disown  it;  as4  when  it  was  first  printed  in  the  6th  Volume  of  Dodsley's 
Miscel:  Poems,  1758,  to  it  were  prefixed  the  initials  &c  of  my  Name 
T.  P  .  .  .  cy:  which  in  a  subsequent  Edition  (I  think  in  1782)  the  Publisher5 

1  Before  "you"  is  a  partly  erased  "which." 

'"should  ....  right  to  it."  Percy  first  wrote  "should  been  content  to  see  this 
juvenile  production,  you  mention,  assigned  to  any  other  Claimant";  this  he  altered  to 
"should  have  scarce  taken  the  trouble  to  assert  my  claim  to  that  juvenile  production 
you  mention,  had  I  heard  it  contested";  then  to  the  present  text,  but  with  "Claim  to 
it"  for  "right  to  it." 

8  "Partiality  ....  would  yet."  Percy  first  wrote  "Partiality  to  that  little  effu- 
sion of  fancy  were  not  sufficient  to  make  me  reassert  my  claim  to  it,  it  would";  this 
he  altered  to  "Partiality  to  it  did  not  tempt  me  to  reassert  my  [altered  to  "revive 
my"]  attention  to  it,  it  would";   then  to  the  present  text. 

4  "as"  first  written  "for."  6  "Publisher"  first  written  "Bookseller." 


PERCY  AND  HIS  NANCY  207 

unknown  to  me  printed  at  length,  mentioning  that  the  author  was  then 
Dean  of  Carlisle,  &c.  Such  is  the  ace*,  of1  this  little  Publication,  which  has 
to  plead  in  its  excuse  that  the  Nancy  who  is  the  subject  of  it,  is  my  present 
wife. — whom  I  then  thought  &  think  still  to  have  been  one  of  the  most 
beautiful  of  her  Sex. — Having2  thus  drawn  me  into  these  confessions  you 
must  in  return  favour  me  with  a  sight  of  your  Answer;  to  the  above  song 
which  will  also  much3  oblige  my  Nephew,  who  is  highly  gratified  by  your 
kind  Remembrance  of  him,  he  is  at  present  with  me,  and  is  so  far  advanced 
in  Seniority  among  the  Fellows  of  St.  John's  College  in  Oxford  that  he  has 
taken  his  Degree  of  Doctor  of  Laws.  He  desires  me  to  present  his  best 
Compliments,  who  have  the  honour  to  be, 
Madam 

Your  obedient 

humble  Servant 

Tho:  Dromore 

PS  As  I  presume  ye  answr.  above  solicited  is  not  your  only  production 
may  I  request  to  be  favoured  with  an  ace*  of  your  other  writings 

Any  Packet  will  come  free,  which  is  directed  to  me  under  Cover  to 

Jasper  Ercke  Esqr 
&c  &c  &c 
War  Office 

Dublin 
[Addressed] 

Miss  Rhodes 
Bridgenorth 
Shropshire 

[Miss  Rhodes  to  Bishop  Percy] 
My  Lord 

The  late  acknowlegements  I  pay  you  for  the  obliging  Letter  you  honoured 
me  with,  must  at  least  wear  the  appearance  of  extreme  neglect:  Suffer  me 
therefore  to  assure  you,  that  I  never  in  my  life  felt  more  highly  gratified, 
than  by  the  very  flattering  attention  you  bestowed  upon  me;  and  that  it 
has  occasioned  me  the  utmost  degree  of  mortification,  that  I  had  it  not  in 
my  power  to  express  my  gratitude  sooner.  I  went  to  Portshall  the  day 
following  that  on  which  I  had  the  pleasure  of  receiving  your  Letter,  intending 

^'of  ....  Publication."  Percy  first  wrote  "of  the  Publication  of  that  small 
poem."     In  the  draft  as  it  stands  "poem"  is  left  uncanceled  after  "Publication." 

2  "Having  ....  favour  me."  Percy  first  wrote  "Having  thus  drawn  me  into 
this  confession  of  my  youthful  Follies,  (I  mean  in  writing  a  [altered  to  y°]  Sonnet  &c) 
you  have  also  so  far  revived  my  taste  for  such  subjects  that  I  must  solicit  to  be 
favoured." 

•"much  ....  gratified."  Originally  written  "gratify  my  Nephew,  who  is 
much  obliged." 


208  G.  L.  KITTREDGE 

to  stay  a  Week  only;  but  Lady  Pigot  woud  not  suffer  me  to  leave  her  untill 
my  Visit  had  been  prolonged  beyond  a  month,  and  I  returned  home  but 
yesterday. 

I  shoud  blush  to  have  given  you  the  trouble  of  explaining  so  fully  as  you 
have  condescendingly  done,  where  the  Ballad  of  "Nanny"  is  to  be  met 
with,  had  it  not  given  rise  to  the  confession  of  so  charming  a  domestic  anec- 
dote, that  even  the  beautifull  language  of  the  Poet,  is  surpassed  by  the  finer 
feelings  of  the  Husband! 

I  feel  that  I  ought  not  to  withhold  from  your  Lordship,  the  communication 
of  the  Verses  you  request;  but  as  I  now  find  that  I  have  been  guilty  of  a 
greater  degree  of  presumption  than  I  was  aware  of,  you  must  receive  them  as 
a  humiliation  for  the  Vanity  of  the  attempt.  With  a  memory  capable  of 
retaining  almost  everything  I  wish,  I  nevertheless  forget  whatever  I  write 
myself.  Neither  am  I  more  anxious  for  their  preservation;  so  that  when  I 
sought  for  the  Manuscript  Copy  of  my  Verses,  I  had  mislaid  it  beyond 
my  search,  &  I  was  therefore  obliged  to  refer  to  the  Gentlemans  Magazine, 
where  they  were  published  in  1785.  This  examination,  recalled  to  my 
recollection  a  circumstance  I  had  totally  forgot — that  I  had  been  prevailed 
upon  by  a  friend  to  write  an  Imitation  of  your  Song,  as  from  an  Officer  going 
to  America;  and  that  it  was  to  this,  that  I  had  written  an  Answer.  I  know 
not  what  excuse  to  plead  for  the  temerity  of  my  attempt;  nor  coud  I  expect 
forgiveness,  from  Candour  less  than  yours. 

The  perusal  of  these  Lines,  will  convince  your  Lordship  that  I  profess  not 
Those  enchanting  spells  that  lye 
Lurking  in  sweet  Poesy! 
and  incline  you  to  believe  me,  when  I  assure  you,  that  I  have  never  under- 
taken a  performance  of  any  length,  except  a  Novel,  of  which  no  one  suspects 
me  to  be  the  Author.  Let  me  however  add,  that  I  am  too  proud  of  the 
interest  you  are  so  good  as  to  express  about  me,  not  to  feel  the  wish  that  I 
coud  prove  myself  deserving  of  it. 

I  rejoice  to  hear  so  good  an  account  of  Dr  Percy.  Although  I  was 
ignorant  of  his  having  taken  his  degree,  I  have  always  understood  that  he 
had  justified  the  very  high  expectations  his  friends  had  formed  of  him.  I 
entreat  that  you  will  do  me  the  fav[our]  to  present  my  best  remembrances  to 
him;  and  believe  that  I  remain,  with  every  possible  sentiment  of  respect, 

Your  Lordships, 

obliged  humble  servant 

Henrietta  Rhodes. 
Bridgnorth 
March  21st  1801. 

What  Miss  Rhodes  says  of  the  freakishness  of  her  memory 
about  her  own  productions  is  not  a  mere  ladylike  trick  of  humility 
after  the  high-bred  Georgian  fashion.     It  is  plain  and  simple  truth, 


PERCY  AND  HIS  NANCY  209 

as  I  know  to  my  cost.    For  her  two  poems  are  not  to  be  found  in 

The  Gentleman's  Magazine  for  1785,  to  which  she  refers.     They  occur 

(anonymously)  two  years  earlier,  in  the  August  number  of  1783 

(Vol.  LIII,  Part  II,  p.  696). l    The  first  is  entitled  "  Imitation  of  the 

Song,  0  Nancy,  &c.  written  by  the  Bishop  of  Dromore.     See  p.  605. 

Addressed  to  a  Lady.    By  an  Officer  going  to  embark  for  America." 

It  begins: 

O  Nancy,  wilt  thou  go  with  me, 

Nor  sigh  to  leave  thy  sweet  retreat  ? 
Can  foreign  climes  have  charms  for  thee, 

Where  discord  still  maintains  her  seat  ? 
Say,  canst  thou  quit  such  joys  serene, 

The  toils  of  savage  war  to  share; 
Nor  yet  regret  the  courtly  scene, 

Where  thou  wert  fairest  of  the  fair  ? 

The  second  poem  is  entitled  " Answer."    The  first  stanza  runs  thus: 

Yes,  Henry,  yes,  this  faithful  heart, 

Can  ev'ry  arduous  trial  prove; 
From  friends  and  native  shores  can  part, 

Its  great  security  thy  love: 
For  ah!  each  scene  when  thou'rt  away 

Assumes  an  aspect  dull  and  drear, 
Fled  are  those  hours  which  shone  so  gay, 

When  thou  with  happiness  wert  here.2 

1  Both  pieces  are  included  in  Miss  Rhodes's  Poems  and  Miscellaneous  Essays, 
Brentford,  1814,  pp.  27-30.  Autograph  copies  of  both  were  inclosed  by  the  authoress 
in  her  second  letter  and  are  preserved  in  the  Grace  MS. 

'There  are  several  other  answers  to  Percy's  poem.  One  by  "Mr.  Greenfield" 
was  sent  to  Miss  Rhodes  by  Percy  and  there  is  a  manuscript  copy  in  the  Grace  volume. 
It  begins  "O  Henry,  didst  thou  know  the  heart."  The  author  was,  I  suppose,  the 
Rev.  Andrew  Greenfield,  of  Moira,  who  submitted  two  acts  of  a  tragedy  to  Percy  in 
1788  (see  his  letters  in  Nichols,  Illustrations,  VIII,  261-62).  The  poem  has  been 
several  times  reprinted,  usually  (if  not  always)  without  the  author's  name:  for  example, 
in  Park's  edition  of  Ritson's  English  Songs,  I  (1813),  197-98;  in  Plumtre's  Collection 
of  Songs,  II  (1824),  182-84;  by  James  Wilson,  The  Musical  Cyclopedia,  1834,  p.  11. 
Another  answer,  beginning  "Yes,  Damon,  yes,  with  thee  I'll  go,"  was  reprinted  from 
The  European  Magazine,  for  December,  1816,  in  The  Gentleman's  Magazine,  for  May, 
1847,  New  Series,  XXVII,  482,  and  is  also  in  Plumtre,  II,  179-81.  A  third  begins: 
"Yes,  Henry,  yes,  with  thee  I'll  go"  (Plumtre,  II,  181-82;  The  British  Orpheus, 
Stourport,  n.d.,  pp.  8-9).  A  fourth,  beginning:  "Oh  William  I  will  gang  with  thee" 
is  mentioned  in  The  Musical  Times,  XIX  (1878),  503.  William  Richardson's 
pretty  poem  entitled  The  Invitation.  An  Idyllion  ("Fair  lady,  leave  parade  and 
show")  may  well  have  been  suggested  by  Percy's  song  (Poems,  chiefly  Rural  [3d  ed., 
1775],  pp.  28-30;  cf.  Wilson,  as  above,  p.  11). 


210  G.  L.  KITTREDGE 

"  See  p.  605  "  in  the  title  of  the  "Imitation"  refers  to  a  previous  page  of 
the  same  volume,  where  we  find:  "Bp.  Percy's  exquisite  Ballad, 
'0  Nancy,  wilt  thou  go  with  me?'  attempted  in  Latin  verse"  by 
C.  L.,  whom  I  have  not  identified.     It  is  in  elegiacs: 

Anna  mihi  comites  dignaberis  addere  gressus; 
Urbis  adoratse  linquere  delicias  ? 

The  Latinizer  has  appended  one  new  stanza,  by  which,  he  says,  "I 
hope  the  harmony  and  simplicity  of  the  pathetic  original  has  not  been 
violated." 

Percy's  reply  (not  preserved)  to  Miss  Rhodes's  second  letter 
must  have  included  some  inquiries  as  to  her  poetry  and  her  novel. 
In  a  letter  of  May  10,  1810,  contained  in  the  Grace  MS,  she  informs 
him  that  the  novel  is  entitled  Augusta  Denbeigh  and  that  "Lane 
gave  twenty  guineas  immediately  for  it;  which  I  thought  an  immense 
sum  for  a  Book  brought  out  in  obscurity,  and  without  a  name.'' 
She  also  sends  her  thanks  to  Percy's  nephew  "for  his  goodness  in 
Copying  Mr.  Greenfields  Reply  to  your  beautifull  Ballad,"  and  she 
incloses  at  least  one  more  poem  of  her  own,  "a  Reply  to  a  very 
fashionable  Song  of  Captain  Morris's  who  in  his  partiality  for  a  Town 
Life,  is  very  wittily  severe  upon  the  Country."1 

Everybody  knows  that  Percy's  song  was  addressed  to  Anna 
Gutteridge  (Goodriche),  whom  he  married  on  April  24,  1759,  and 
who  died  at  Dromore  House  on  December  30,  1806,  aged  seventy- 
four.  But  there  are  two  or  three  questions  about  the  song  that  need 
clearing  up. 

In  the  autumn  of  1757,  Percy,  then  Vicar  of  Easton  Maudit  in 
Northamptonshire,  sent  "O  Nancy,  wilt  thou  go  with  me?"  to 
Shenstone,  with  a  request  that  he  would  revise  it  before  communicat- 
ing it  to  Dodsley  the  publisher.2  Shenstone's  corrections,  which 
must  have  been  trifling,  met  with  a  polite  acknowledgment  in  Percy's 
letter  of  November  24.3  The  poem  appeared  in  print  for  the  first 
time  in  1758  in  Dodsley's  Collection  as  "A  Song.    By  T.  P***cy,"4 

1  This  poem  is  not  in  the  Grace  MS.  It  may  be  found  in  Miss  Rhodes's  volume 
of  Poems  and  Miscellaneous  Essays,  1814,  pp.  35-38:  "Parody  on  Captain  Morris's 
Song,  'London  and  the  Country.'"  The  same  volume  contains  the  song  ("In 
London  I  know  not  what  to  be  at"),  pp.  50-52. 

2  Shenstone  to  Percy,  January  4,  1758  (Hecht,  Thomas  Percy  und  William 
Shenstone,  Quellen  und  Forschungen,  CIII,  6). 

8  Hecht,  p.  4.  4  A  Collection  of  Poems,  VI,  233-34. 


PERCY  AND  HIS  NANCY  211 

and  was  reprinted  in  subsequent  editions  with  the  same  ascription 
until  1782,  when  Dodsley  gave  the  author's  surname  in  full  with  an 
explanatory  footnote:  "Thomas  Percy,  D.D.  now  Dean  of  Carlisle."1 

Before  1774,  it  seems,2  the  song  was  twice  set  to  music,  once  by 
Thomas  Carter  and  once  by  Joseph  Baildon,  and  was  sung  at  Vaux- 
hall  (in  Carter's  setting)  by  Vernon,  and  at  Ranelagh  (in  Baildon's) 
by  Beard.  In  Carter's  text  (as  usually  printed),  the  first  line  appears 
in  a  Scottish  guise  ("0  Nanny  wilt  thou  gang  with  me?")  and  in 
Baildon's  the  Scotticisms  are  carried  through  the  piece  and  "Betsy" 
is  substituted  for  "Nancy."  Then,  in  1787,  James  Johnson  in 
The  Scots  Musical  Museum3  published  the  Scottish  text  as  by  "Dr. 
Piercy,"  with  Baildon's  music  but  without  naming  the  composer. 

Burns,  who  regarded  "O  Nancy"  as  "perhaps  the  most  beautiful 
ballad  in  the  English  language,"4  was  indignant  at  what  he  regarded 
as  Johnson's  (or  some  other  canny  Scot's)  act  of  piracy.  "It  is  too 
barefaced,"  he  wrote,  "to  take  Dr.  Percy's  charming  song,  and  by 
the  means  of  transposing  a  few  English  words  into  Scots,  to  offer  to 
pass  it  for  a  Scots  song."5  Who  did  the  Scotticizing  has  always  been 
a  puzzle.  Some  have  thought  that  it  was  Percy  himself.  Grainger 
mentions  "your  Scotch  song"  (but  describes  it  no  further)  in  a  letter 

i  Collection,  VI  (1782),  250-51. 

2  Dates  are  uncertain  here.  Baildon  died  in  1774.  His  tune  is  contained  in  a 
collection  of  his  songs  entitled  The  Laurel  (ca.  1773),  which  I  have  not  seen,  but  the 
first  four  lines  are  given  in  The  Musical  Times,  XIX  (September  1,  1878),  503;  the 
title  runs:  "A  Song  in  the  Scotch  Manner,  sung  by  Mr.  Beard."  In  The  Bull-Finch, 
p.  211,  I  find  (without  the  tune):  "The  Fairest  of  the  Fair.  Sung  at  Ranelagh.  Set 
by  Mr.  Joseph  Baildon."  This  is  the  edition  of  The  Bull-Finch  containing  490  songs  and 
dated  1780  in  the  Stainer  Catalogue,  p.  16.  Whether  the  piece  occurs  in  earlier  edi- 
tions, I  do  not  know.  Carter's  tune  is  dated  1773  by  Stenhouse  (Illustrations,  I 
[1839],  30),  but  he  is  very  untrustworthy  in  such  details.  Dr.  Grattan  Flood  says 
that  Carter  set  the  song  "at  the  close  of  the  year  1769  ....  and  settled  in  London  in 
1772"  (Grove's  Dictionary  of  Music  [ed.,  Fuller  Maitland],  I,  475).  In  1783,  Ritson 
included  Carter's  tune  in  his  English  Songs,  III,  sig.  G4. 

>  No.  32,  I,  33. 

4  Burns  to  George  Thomson,  October  26,  1792  (Works,  Edinburgh,  1879,  VI,  220; 
Life  and  Works  [ed.,  Chambers  and  Wallace],  III,  355).  Burns  was  not  alone  in  this 
opinion.  Dr.  Aikin,  in  1772,  remarked  that  O  Nancy  "has  scarcely  its  equal  for  real 
tenderness  in  this  or  any  other  language"  (Essays  on  Song-Writing  [2d  ed.,  1774], 
p.  110);  and  in  1780  J.  Wfarton?]  wrote:  "This  has  been  esteemed,  not  undeservedly, 
the  most  beautiful  song  in  the  English  language.  It  is  tender,  easy,  and  elegant" 
(Gentleman' 8  Magazine,  L  [August,  1780],  372). 

6  Cromek's  Reliques  of  Robert  Burns  (4th  ed„  1817),  p.  209;  Life  and  Works 
(ed.,  Chambers  and  Wallace),  IV,  377. 


212  G.  L.  KITTREDGE 

to  Percy  dated  February,  1758,  and  asks  if  he  may  give  it  to  the 
editors  of  a  new  magazine  (also  unnamed  by  him),  who  are  eager  for 
good  poetry.1  Nichols  thought  this  "Scotch  song"  was  "0  Nanny," 
but  he  had  no  proof,2  and  Mitford,  who  repeated  the  conjecture,  did 
not  improve  his  argument,  in  the  long  run,  by  inadvertently  copying 
two  of  Nichols's  footnotes  into  the  text  of  Grainger's  letter,  so  as  to 
make  him  give  the  name  of  the  periodical  (The  Grand  Magazine) 
and  designate  the  poem  by  its  first  line — "your  Scotch  song — '0 
Nannie,  wilt  thou  gang  wi'  me  ?'  "3  This  is  a  very  pretty  case  of  a 
couple  of  glosses  that  "crept  into  the  text."  On  the  whole,  the 
prevalent  opinion,  despite  Grainger's  cryptic  utterance  about  "your 
Scotch  song,"  seems  to  be  that  only  the  English  text  is  Percy's.  And 
that  would  appear  to  be  reasonable,  for  why  should  a  young  English 
clergyman  address  his  young  English  Anna  in  the  Scottish  dialect  ? 
However,  in  this  instance,  the  apparently  improbable  is  true. 
Nichols  was  right  and  so  was  Mitford,  despite  his  textual  aberrations. 
Percy  wrote  the  song  originally  in  an  attempted  Scottish  dialect, 
and  not  in  the  English  form  in  which  he  published  it  in  1758,  and  here 
it  is  from  a  copy  in  his  own  hand,  authenticated  by  his  signature, 
preserved  among  the  Percy  Papers  in  the  Harvard  College  Library. 

The  Song, 
In  Dodsley's  Miscellanies  Vol.  6.  p.  233. 
As  it  was  first  written 
In  Imitation  of  the  Scotch  Manner 

O  Annie!  wilt  thou  gang  wi'  me, 

Nor  sigh  to  leave  the  flaunting  town  ? 
Can  silent  glens  hae  charms  for  thee, 

The  lowly  Cot,  and  russet  gown  ? 
Nae  langer  dress'd  in  silken  sheene, 

Nae  langer  deck'd  wi'  Jewels  rare, 
Say  can'st  thou  quit  each  courtly  scene, 

Where  thou  wert  fairest  of  the  fair  ? 

1  Nichols,  Illustrations,  VII,  247. 

2  Nichols,  VII,  228,  247,  note. 

8  Gentleman's  Magazine,  New  Series,  XXVII  (March,  1847),  376-77  (cf.  p.  604). 
J.  M.,  who  signs  this  communication,  was  certainly  the  well-known  editor  of  Gray; 

he  writes  from  "B 11,"  i.e.,  Benhall,  Suffolk,  where  Mitford  was  vicar  from  1810 

until  his  death  in  1859.     See  also  Willmott,  in  his  edition  of  Percy's  Reliques,  1857, 
pp.  xxx-xxxvi;  G.  A.  C[rawford],  The  Musical  Times,  XIX  (September  1,  1878),  502-3. 


PERCY  AND  HIS  NANCY  213 

0  Annie!  when  thou'rt  far  awa', 

Wilt  thou  not  cast  a  wish  behind  ? 
Say  can'st  thou  face  the  flaky  snaw, 

Nor  shrink  before  the  wintry  wind  ? 
0  can  that  saft  and  gentle  mien 

Extremes  of  hardship  learn  to  bear, 
Nor  sad  regret  each  courtly  scene 

Where  thou  wert  fairest  of  the  fair. 

0  Annie!  can'st  thou  love  sae  true 

Thro'  perils  keen  wi'  me  to  gae  ? 
Or  when  thy  swain  Mishap  shall  rue, 

To  share  with  him  the  Pang  of  wae  ? 
Say  should  disease  or  pain  befall, 

Wilt  thou  assume  the  Nurse's  Care, 
Nor  wistful  those  gay  Scenes  recall, 

Where  thou  wert  fairest  of  the  fair  ? 

And  when  at  last  thy  Love  shall  die, 

Wilt  thou  receive  his  parting  breath  ? 
Wilt  thou  repress  each  strugling  Sigh  ? 

And  chear  wi'  smiles  the  bed  of  death  ? 
And  wilt  thou  o'er  his  breathless  Clay, 

Strew  flowr's  &  drop  the  tender  tear  ? 
Nor  then  regret  those  scenes  sae  gay, 

Where  thou  wert  fairest  of  the  fair  ? 

T  Percy.1 

Percy's  "originality" — a  parlous  word — has  been  much  debated 
in  the  matter  of  his  famous  song,  and  the  discussion  illustrates,  in  a 
curious  and  entertaining  fashion,  the  loose  way  in  which  literary 
history  is  often  written.  Stenhouse  about  1820  suggested2  that 
Percy  "might  have  had  in  view"  the  anonymous  Scottish  song  in 
Ramsay's  Tea-Table  Miscellany  entitled  "The  Young  Laird  and 
Edinburgh  Katy,"  the  second  stanza  of  which  begins: 

O  Katy,  wiltu  gang  wi'  me, 

And  leave  the  dinsome  town  a  while; 
The  blossom's  sprouting  frae  the  tree, 

And  a'  the  summer's  gawn  to  smile.3 

*  The  signature  shows  the  entwined  T  and  P,  as  in  that  reproduced  by  Dibdin, 
The  Bibliographical  Decameron,  III  (1817),  340.  The  heading  ("The  Song,"  etc.),  as 
well  as  the  text,  is  in  Percy's  hand. 

2  Illustrations,  in  Johnson's  Museum  (ed.  1839),  I,  notes;  (ed.  1853),  IV,  29-30. 

•  Tea-Table  Miscellany  (9th  ed.,  1733),  I,  66.  The  song  is  Ramsay's  own:  see  his 
Poems,  II  (1800),  226-27. 


214  G.  L.  KITTREDGE 

And  he  adds  complacently  that  "the  Bishop's  verses  ....  form 
one  of  the  most  successful  imitations  of  the  Scottish  pastoral  ballad 
which  has  ever  yet  appeared  on  the  south  side  of  the  Tweed."1  There 
is,  to  be  sure,  identity  of  meter,  but  there  is  nothing  Scottish  about 
the  meter,  and  the  spirit  of  the  two  songs  is  utterly  different  as  well 
as  their  details.  It  would  be  quite  as  much  to  the  point  to  suggest 
that  the  unknown  Scot  took  a  hint  from  "Come  live  with  me  and 
be  my  love." 

However,  Dr.  Furnivall,  in  1867,  on  the  suggestion  of  Rimbault, 
went  Stenhouse  several  better.     He  says: 

Knowing  Percy's  habits,  one  is  not  surprised  to  find  that  this  ballad, 
for  which  he  has  been  so  much  praised,  is  little  more  than  a  paraphrase  of 
another  poem.  Of  "Oh  Nanny,"  Dr.  Rimbault  writes:  "With  regard  to  its 
originality  we  will  say  nothing,  because  the  following  elegant  little  poem, 
from  a  MS.  dated  1682,  evidently  furnished  the  idea.  The  same  words,2 
with  some  trifling  variations,  are  found  in  Nat.  Lee's  tragedy  'Theodosius, 
or  the  Force  of  Love/  edit.  1697."3 

The  poem  in  question  is  appended  under  the  title  of  "The  Royal 
Nun":  it  begins,  "Canst  thou,  Marina,  leave  the  world?"  Now 
the  comparison  with  Lee's  "Canst  thou,  Marina,  leave  the  world?" 
was  made  (before  Rimbault)  by  Charles  Kirkpatrick  Sharpe,  who 
suggested,  with  due  restraint,  that  "perhaps  both  the  author  of 
1  The  Young  Laird  and  Edinburgh  Katy '  and  Bishop  Percy  took  the 
idea  of  their  ballads  from  a  song  in  Lee's  beautiful  tragedy  of  Theo- 
dosius."4  There  is  just  similarity  enough  to  warrant  Sharpe's 
cautious  observation,  and  I  am  glad  to  quote  him,  if  for  no  other 
reason,  because  he  pays  a  merited  tribute  to  poor  Lee's  undervalued 
tragedy;  but  the  phrase  "little  more  than  a  paraphrase"  goes  far 
beyond  the  facts. 

In  the  second  place,  Rimbault  forgets  to  mention  that  the  date 
of  his  manuscript  (1682)  is  two  years  later  than  the  date  of  Lee's 
tragedy.  He  gives  us  the  impression  that  the  song  was  borrowed 
or  stolen  by  Lee,  and  fortifies  this  impression  by  referring  to  "edit. 
1697."     Mr.  Wheatley,   in    1876,    stepped  into  the  trap  with  both 

1  Rimbault  repeats  Stenhouse's  suggestion  (Folio  Manuscript,  I,  xli,  n.  1). 

2  I.e.,  the  same  words  as  those  of  "the  following  elegant  little  poem." 

3  Bishop  Percy's  Folio  Manuscript,  I,  xli,  n.  1. 

4  Additional  Illustrations  in  the  1839  edition  of  Johnson's  Musical  Museum,  I, 
notes,  p.  112*  (ed.  1853,  IV,  112*). 


PERCY  AND  HIS  NANCY  215 

feet.  "Dr.  Rimbault,"  he  says,  " communicated  this  poem  ["The 
Royal  Nun"]  to  the  editors  of  the  folio  MS.  from  a  MS.  dated  1682, 
or  fifteen  years  earlier  than  Lee's  version."1  Now  Lee  died  in  1692, 
and  Theodosius  was  both  acted  and  printed  in  1680.  Comparison 
between  Rimbault's  manuscript  of  1682  and  Lee's  text  of  1680 
shows  at  a  glance  that  the  manuscript  gives  merely  a  modified  and 
attenuated  extract  from  the  florid  operatic  scene  in  which  Marina 
and  Flavilla  are  received  as  votaresses.2  The  thing  is  not  a  song  in 
eight-line  stanzas,  but  a  series  of  songs  in  four-line  stanzas.  Atticus, 
the  chief  priest,  sings  one  stanza  (the  first  half  of  Rimbault's  stanza  1) ; 
the  second  and  third  priests  follow,  each  with  one  stanza;  then 
Atticus  sings  a  stanza,  then  the  chorus;  Marina  and  Flavilla  reply, 
each  in  three  stanzas,  and  Atticus  closes  with  four  couplets.3 

Dr.  Rimbault's  note,  as  printed  by  Furnivall  in  1867,  coincides 
strictly  in  part  with  an  item  in  Fly  Leaves  (1853),  even  to  the  use  of 
the  editorial  "we"  and  the  italicizing  of  the  word  "originality."4  I 
believe  Rimbault  was  the  editor  of  Fly  Leaves  and  have  no  doubt 
that  this  item  was  from  his  pen.  Both  the  item  and  the  note  contain 
"The  Royal  Nun"  "from  a  MS.  dated  1682."  The  item  differs  from 
the  note  in  omitting  all  reference  to  Lee  and  in  containing  the  remark 
that  "The  Royal  Nun"  is  "attributed  to  Sir  William  Davenant."5 

1  Percy's  Reliques,  I  (1876),  lxxiv.  It  is  only  fair  to  add  that  Wheatley  decisively 
vindicates  the  bishop:  "Even  could  it  be  proved  that  Percy  had  borrowed  the  opening 
idea  from  these  two  poems  ["The  Royal  Nun"  and  "The  Young  Laird"],  it  does  not 
derogate  from  his  originality." 

1  Act  I,  scene  i  (quarto  of  1680),  pp.  9-10. 

'  The  manuscript  of  1682  must  be  that  described  by  Rimbault  in  A  Little  Book 
of  Songs  and  Ballads,  1851,  p.  163  (cf.  pp.  166,  183,  187)  as  "a  MS.  volume  of  old  Songs, 
collected  and  noted  by  the  celebrated  'small-coal'  man,  Thomas  Britton.  On  the 
fly-leaf  is  his  autograph,  and  the  date,  1682.  It  was  purchased,  with  several  others 
of  the  same  kind,  and  of  the  same  collection,  at  the  sale  of  John  Sidney  Hawkins' 
books."  Hawkins  died  in  1842  and  his  library  was  sold  in  1843.  On  the  sale  of  Brit- 
ton's  library  in  1715,  see  Dibdin,  Bibliomania,  1811,  pp.  440-41. 

4 1,  18-21.  The  two  series  of  Fly  Leaves,  published  by  John  Miller,  the  London 
bookseller,  are  reprinted  from  Miller's  London  Librarian  and  Book-Buyer's  Gazette,  a 
monthly  list  of  second-hand  books.  The  first  series  was  published  in  1853,  but  the  title- 
page  of  the  copy  I  have  used  bears  the  date  1855.  See  Notes  and  Queries,  First  Series, 
VIII,  656;  XI,  40. 

6  The  item  also  quotes  the  erroneous  account  of  the  occasion  of  Percy's  writing  his 
song  given  by  Miss  Leetitia-Matilda  Hawkins,  Memoirs,  Anecdotes,  Facts,  and  Opinions, 
I  (1824),  271,  note.  It  also  mentions  Mrs.  Percy's  portrait  at  Ecton  House,  and  it 
contains  an  account  of  Thomas  Carter.  Rimbault's  note  adds  a  reference  to  "The 
Young  Laird  and  Edinburgh  Katy." 


216  G.  L.  KITTREDGE 

It  does  not  appear,  however,  that  this  attribution  is  in  the  manuscript. 
Doubtless,  it  was  between  1853  and  1867  that  Rimbault  discovered 
that  the  song  is  in  Theodosius.  Anyhow,  by  1867,  he  had  come  to 
distrust  the  attribution  to  Davenant,  whatever  that  may  have  been 
based  on. 

But  we  have  not  yet  finished  our  chapter  of  accidents.  Dr. 
Furnivall,  who  was  not  wont  to  make  such  mistakes,  wrote  to  Notes 
and  Queries,  in  1868,  to  the  following  effect:  "Mr.  W.  Chappell 
tells  me  that  the  ballad  ' Canst  thou,  Marina,  leave  the  world?' — 
which  Dr.  Rimbault  shows  ....  was  the  original  of  Percy's  '  Oh, 
Nanny  wilt  thou  go  with  me  ?' — is  in  Sir  W.  Davenant's  play  of  The 
Rivals,  acted  in  1664,  and  printed  in  1668."1  This  is  simply  not  the 
case.  There  is  no  such  song,  nor  anything  in  the  remotest  degree 
resembling  it,  in  Davenant's  Rivals.2  How  Chappell,  the  most  learned 
of  antiquaries  in  these  matters,  came  to  blunder  so  egregiously,  is 
hard  to  understand.  One  thinks  that  he  must  really  have  seen  the 
verses  in  some  copy  of  the  play;  but  if  so,  they  must  have  been  a 
late  insertion  in  an  acting  version.  In  Davenant's  comedy,  the 
distracted  Celania  sings  a  number  of  songs  and  snatches  of  song, 
and  stanzas  from  the  lyric  service  in  Theodosius  may  have  been 
utilized  by  some  actress  to  enrich  the  part.  At  all  events,  nothing 
is  clearer  than  that  no  such  verses  were  written  or  inserted  by  Dave- 
nant, who  died  in  1668.  They  *  are  Nat  Lee's  property,  and  his 
alone. 

An  unknown  critic  declared,  about  a  century  ago,  that  "the  sub- 
ject of  the  song  is  taken"  from  an  Elegy  of  Tibullus,3  obviously  mean- 
ing the  First.  There  is  indeed  some  quite  legitimate  resemblance, 
particularly  between  the  last  stanza  ("And  when  at  last  thy  love 
shall  die,"  etc.)  and  that  part  of  the  address  to  Delia  that  begins: 
"Te  spectem  suprema  mihi  cum  venerit  hora."4  The  comparison, 
at  all  events,  has  a  certain  interest,  since  the  version  of  this  elegy 

1  Notes  and  Queries,  Fourth  Series,  I,  555. 

•See  the  quarto  of  1668,  the  first  edition,  which  was  "licensed  September  19, 
1668." 

3  The  European  Magazine,  December,  1816,  as  quoted  in  The  Gentleman's  Magazine, 
New  Series,  XXVII  (1847),  482.  Cf.  Aikin,  Essays  on  Song-Writing  (2d.  ed.,  1774), 
p.  110. 

4  i,  1,  59-68  (73-82  Grainger). 


PERCY  AND  HIS  NANCY  217 

which  Grainger  printed  in  his  Tibullus  (1759) *  was  made  by  Percy  in 
or  about  1756,  and  since  Grainger's  book  was  the  subject  of  incessant 
correspondence  between  Grainger  and  Percy  from  1756  to  1759.2 
It  was  in  1758,  we  remember,  that  Grainger  expressed  a  wish  to  print 
Percy's  "Scotch  Song"  in  The  Grand  Magazine* 

There  is  a  tiresome  literary  tradition,  commonly  assumed  to  go 
back  to  some  kind  of  contemporary  evidence,  that  Percy's  Nancy 
was  a  plain-featured  woman.  So  far  as  I  can  make  out,  it  was  started 
by  an  innocent  passage  in  Fanny  Burney's  diary.  In  1791,  she  met 
Mrs.  Percy,  then  a  matron  of  sixty  years,  and  she  thus  describes  her : 
"She  is  very  uncultivated  and  ordinary  in  manners  and  conversation, 
but  a  good  creature,  and  much  delighted  to  talk  over  the  Royal  Family, 
to  one  of  whom  she  was  formerly  a  nurse."4  Willmott,  in  1857, 
quoted  this  passage  correctly,  but  prefixed  a  somewhat  ambiguous 
comment:  "If  Madame  D'Arblay's  account  be  correct,  'the  fairest 
of  the  fair'  borrowed  her  graces  from  the  poet's  pen."5  This  became, 
in  Gilfillan's  edition  of  the  Reliques  in  1858 :6  "She  is  described  as  a 
'good  creature,'  but  ordinary  both  in  appearance  and  manners,  and 
indebted  for  her  charms  to  her  husband's  imagination."  In  1867, 
Pickford  continued  the  game  of  gossip.  "She  ....  is  described  as 
a  good  wife,  but  indebted  for  her  charms  to  her  husband's  poetical 
fancy,  which  has  styled  her  'fairest  of  the  fair.'"7  And  finally,  in 
1908,  Miss  Gaussen  felt  bound  to  echo  her  predecessors:  "It  may 
have  been  only  to  the  eye  of  the  poet  that  'Nancy'  appeared  as 
'fairest  of  the  fair/  and  her  charms  possibly  had  no  more  material 
existence  than  'the  stuff  that  dreams  are  made  of.'"8 

We  should  observe  that  Miss  Burney  says  nothing  of  the  lady's 
good  looks  one  way  or  the  other,  and  that,  even  if  she  did,  beauty 

1  A  Poetical  Translation  of  the  Elegies  of  Tibullus,  I,  3  ff .  See  Grainger's  acknowl- 
edgment, I,  xiii. 

2  See  the  letters  in  Nichols,  Illustrations,  VII,  242  ff. ;  Percy  to  Shenstone,  Janu- 
ary 9,  1759  (Hecht,  pp.  9-10). 

•Pp.  211-12  above. 

4  Diary  and  letters  (ed.,  Dobson,  1905),  V.  31. 

6  Willmott's  edition  of  the  Reliques,  p.  xvii. 

6  Edinburgh  (James  Nichol),  I,  v. 

7  Life  in  Hales  and  Furnivall's  edition  of  the  Folio  Manuscript,  I,  xxxii. 

8  Percy:  Prelate  and  Poet,  p.  19. 


218  G.  L.  KITTREDGE 

sometimes  fades  between  the  ages  of  twenty-five  and  sixty.  Mrs. 
Percy's  obituary,  in  The  Gentleman's  Magazine,  calls  her  "the  truly 
worthy,  amiable,  and  very  accomplished  wife"  of  the  Bishop  of 
Dromore,1  and  to  the  same  number,  a  poet  who  signs  himself  "Hafiz" 
contributed  an  Epitaph  which  celebrates  her  beauty: 

Whose  moral  excellence,  and  virtues  rare, 
Shone  as  conspicuous  as  her  face  was  fair.2 

A  more  decisive  witness  is  Miss  Laetitia-Matilda  Hawkins.  Speaking 
of  Percy's  "charming  wife,"  she  avers  that  "the  best  whole  length  of 
the  so  often  painted  wife  of  Rubens  will  always  keep  in  remembrance 
what  Mrs.  Percy  was,  particularly  that  in  the  engravings  from  the 
Luxembourg  Gallery,  where  'Lady  Rubens'  appears  under  the  char- 
acter of  Mary  de  Medicis  kneeling  to  receive  the  crown."3  Whether 
Miss  Hawkins  was  right  or  wrong  in  believing  that  Rubens  painted 
his  wife  as  the  queen  in  this  coronation  picture4  is  a  matter  that  does 
not  affect  the  value  of  her  testimony.  She  was  the  daughter  and 
private  secretary  of  Johnson's  friend,  Sir  John  Hawkins,  who  was  a 
member  of  the  famous  club  to  which  both  Johnson  and  Percy 
belonged,  and  she  was  a  person  of  sufficient  maturity  to  have  her 
father's  Life  of  Johnson  wrongly  credited  to  her  own  pen.5  The 
best  evidence  of  all,  however,  is  the  lady's  portrait,6  which  is  that  of 
a  distinctly  handsome  woman. 

i  LXXVII,  Part  I,  p.  91  (January,  1807). 
» P.  60. 

3  Memoirs,  Anecdotes,  Facts,  and  Opinions,  I  (1824),  271,  note. 

4  See  GrossmanD,  Der  Gemtildezyclus  der  Galerie  der  Maria  von  Medici,  p.  15,  n.  3; 
Rooses  and  Ruelens,  Correspondance  de  Rubens,  III,  360. 

6  Memoirs,  etc.,  I,  160. 

6  Reproduced  in  Gaussen,  p.  22. 


SIR  THOMAS  MALORY 


BY 

GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE 


BARNSTABLE 

Privately  Printed 

1925 


SHEA  BROTHERS,    PRINTERS 
CAMBRIDGE.    MASSACHUSETTS 


SIR  THOMAS  MALORY 


SHORTLY  after  the  appearance  of  my  essay  en- 
titled "Who  was  Sir  Thomas  Malory?"  (1897)1 
Mr.  A.  T.  Martin,  F.  S.  A.,  published  an  im- 
portant paper2  on  the  same  subject.  In  this  paper, 
which  was  read  before  the  Society  of  Antiquaries 
on  June  16th,  1898,  he  discussed  two  distinct  Thomas 
Malorys,  both  alive  in  1469.  One  of  them  is  Thomas 
Malory  of  Papworth,  whom  he  confidently  identified 
with  the  author  of  the  Morte  d'Arthur.  In  my  paper 
(which  Mr.  Martin  had  not  seen>  this  Thomas  is 
mentioned  (p.  96,  note  1),  with  the  remark  that  he 
"was  not  a  knight,  but  merely  an  armiger,"  this  rules 
him  out,  even  if  he  did  not  die  too  soon  to  satisfy 
the  conditions."  The  only  date  which  I  had  for  his 
death  was  1469.  Mr.  Martin,  who  collected  much 
information  about  him,  showed  that  he  died  be- 
tween September  16  and  October  27  of  that  year;3 
hence  it  is  clear  that  he  did  not  necessarily  "die  too 
soon,"  since  the  ninth  year  of  Edward  IV  (in  which, 
according  to  the  author's  own  statement,  the  Morte 
was  finished)  extended  from  March  4,  1469,  to 
March  3,  1470  (both  included).  There  is  a  margin 
of  at  least  six  months.  The  objection  that  Thomas 
Malory  of  Papworth  was  an  armiger  only,  and  not  a 
knight,  remains  unshaken  by  Mr.  Martin's  investi- 
gations; for  these,  so  far  from  establishing  the  pos- 
sibility that  this  Thomas  was  a  knight,  make  double 


sure  the  assurance  that  he  was  not.  Mr.  Martin 
found  many  records  relating  to  this  Thomas,  includ- 
ing his  will.  In  none  of  them  does  any  designation 
of  rank  follow  his  name  except  in  the  Fine  Roll  of 
Edward  IV  (1469,  Nov.  18)  of  a  writ  to  the  escheator 
in  Northampton.  Here  he  is  called  armiger.  Every 
fresh  document,  then,  is  additional  evidence  that 
Thomas  of  Papworth  was  not  a  knight,  and  conse- 
quently that  he  cannot  have  been  the  author  of 
whom  we  are  in  search.  His  proximity  to  the  Welsh 
border,  however,  and  the  "tradition"  that  the  author 
of  the  Morte  was  connected  with  "Mailoria,"  led 
Mr.  Martin4  to  prefer  him  to  another  candidate,  who 
was  certainly  a  knight,  the  Sir  Thomas  Malory  of 
Winwick  and  Newbold  whose  claims  were  set  forth 
in  my  paper.  The  futility  of  this  "tradition"5  and 
the  impossibility  of  connecting  the  trisyllabic  name 
Malory  (Mafore  Maloree)  with  Maelwr  have  already 
been  sufficiently  insisted  on,6  and  we  may  regard  it 
as  certain  that,  whoever  wrote  the  Morte,  it  was  not 
Thomas  of  Papworth.  Even  Mr.  Martin  was  not, 
as  I  understand  from  a  private  letter  from  him,  in- 
clined to  insist  on  his  identification  after  reading 
my  paper. 

A  further  question  is,  however,  raised  by  Mr. 
Martin's  essay,  which  must  be  settled  before  the  re- 
sults at  which  I  arrived  in  1894  can  be  regarded  as 
conclusive.  The  result  of  my  investigation  was  to 
show  that  only  one  person  could  be  found  who  ful- 
filled all  the  conditions, — Sir  Thomas  Malory, 
knight,  of  ^Vinwick  and  Newbold,  who  died,  accord- 
ing to  Dugdale,  "14  Martii  10.  E.  4,"  that  is  March 
14,   1470    (in  our  reckoning).6     Mr.   Martin,   who, 


when  he  read  his  paper,  did  not  know  the  date  of 
this  Sir  Thomas's  death,  identified  with  him  a 
"Thomas  Malory,  miles",  who  is  said  in  an  inquisi- 
tion dated  November  6,  1471,  and  held  at  Northamp- 
ton, to  have  died  on  March  12,  1471,  and  to  have 
held  no  lands  in  that  county.  On  reading  my  pa- 
per, Mr.  Martin  was  inclined  to  give  up  this  identi- 
fication, so  that,  besides  his  Thomas  of  Papworth, 
there  remained  two  Sir  Thomases  in  the  field:  Sir 
Thomas  of  Newbold  and  Winwick,  and  Sir  Thomas 
of  the  Northampton  Inquisition.7  Further  inquiry, 
however,  has  shown  me  that  Mr.  Martin  was  right 
in  identifying  these  two  persons,  and  that  therefore 
(apart  from  Thomas  of  Papworth,  who  is  ruled  out 
because  he  certainly  was  not  a  knight),  there  re- 
mains only  Sir  Thomas  Malory,  he  of  Winwick  and 
Newbold.     The  evidence  is  briefly  as  follows. 

Dugdale  is  in  error  in  giving  the  date  of  Thomas 
of  Newbold's  death  as  March  14,  10  Ed.  IV.  (i.  e. 
March  14,  1470). 8  His  error  comes  from  the  com- 
monest of  slips  in  computation,  that  made  in  passing 
from  the  year  of  Our  Lord  to  the  regnal  year  or 
vice  versa.  His  authority  for  the  date  is  given  in 
his  note  as  Cotton  MS.,  Vitellius,  XII,  from  which 
he  also  derived  the  information  that  Malory  is 
"buryed  under  a  marble  in  the  Chappell  of  St. 
Francis  at  the  Gray  Friars,  near  Newgate  in  the 
Suburbs  of  London."9  This  is  a  paper  manuscript 
of  the  early  sixteenth  century.  The  article  here 
used  by  Dugdale10  is  called,  in  a  table  of  contents 
by  Dugdale,  prefixed  to  the  manuscript.,  "De  monu- 
mentis  in  ecclesia  fratrum  Minorum  Londini."  As 
to  the  article  itself,  it  is  not  a  register  of  burials, 


but  a  careful  account  (in  Latin)  of  the  monuments 
in  the  order  of  their  situation, — in  the  choir,  in  the 
chapel  of  St.  Mary,  .  .  .  "in  ecclesia  extra  ualuas  in 
ala  Boriali  inter  m[urum]'  borialem  et  columpnas," 
etc.  The  date  of  the  article  is  probably  shortly  be- 
fore July,  1533.11  Under  the  heading  "In  capella 
sci  Francisci"  this  entry  occurs : 

Mallere     Sub  2a  parte  fenestre  4>4  sub  lapide  jacet  -? 

dns  Thomas  Mailer  e>  valens  miles  Qui  obijt 
14  die  mensis  Marcij  Ao  diii  1470  de  Parochia 
de  Monkenkirkby  in  comitatu  Warwici.12 

Here,  then,  we  have  what  is  practically  a  copy  of 
the  inscription  on  the  tombstone  of  Sir  Thomas 
Malory  of  Newbold  and  Winwick.  He  died  March 
14,  "A.  D.  1470,"  that  is,  of  course,  in  our  reckoning, 
1471.  In  transferring  the  A.  D.  to  the  regnal  year, 
Dugdale  slipped  and  wrote  "10.  E.  IV"  instead  of 
"11.  E.  IV."  Thus  there  is  an  almost  exact  agree- 
ment between  the  date  of  the  death  of  Thomas 
Malory,  miles,  in  the  Northampton  inquisition  and 
that  of  Sir  Thomas  of  Winwick  and  Newbold.  The 
discrepancy  between  March  12  (the  inquisition) 
and  March  14  (the  tombstone)  is  of  no  consequence. 
The  inquisition  is  probably  in  error.  The  dates  in 
these  inquisitions  are  often  slightly  erroneous,  the 
escheators  being  more  interested  in  the  fact  of  the 
man's  death  and  in  the  age  of  his  heir  than  in  the 
exact  moment  of  his  demise.13  When  it  is  added 
that  the  Northampton  inquisition  gives  the  heir  of 
Sir  Thomas  as  Robert  Malory,  aged  23,14  and  that 
Sir  Thomas  of  Newbold  and,  Winwick  had  a  son 
Robert  who  may  well  have  been  of  this  same  age 


at  the  time  of  his  father's  death,15  the  identity  of 
the  Sir  Thomas  of  the  Northampton  inquisition  with 
Sir  Thomas  of  Newbold  and  Winwick  is  thoroughly 
established. 

One  difficulty,  which  troubled  Mr.  Martin,  may 
be  easily  explained.  The  Northampton  inquisition 
states  that  Sir  Thomas  held  no  lands  in  Northamp- 
ton, whereas  Sir  Thomas  of  Winwick  and  Newbold, 
had,  in  his  lifetime,  considerable  possessions  in  that 
country.  Mr.  Martin  suggests  that  "Winwick  [in 
Northampton]  was  held  by  [Sir  Thomas's]  wife, 
Elizabeth,  in  her  own  right."  He  adds  "Of  this 
Elizabeth  I  have  found  an  inquisition.16  She  was 
the  widow  of  Thomas  Malory,  miles,  and  she  died 
in  1479.17  At  her  death  she  held  Wynwyke,  in 
Northampton,  for  life,  of  the  king  by  military  ser- 
vice; Newbold  Fenne  alias  Newbold  Ryvell  in  War- 
wick; and  Swinnerford  or  Swinford  in  Leicester- 
shire. Her  heir  is  Nicholas,  the  son  of  her  son 
Robert."  Now,  in  fact,  Winwick  was  the  heredi- 
tary possession  of  Sir  Thomas ;  it  had  never  belonged 
to  his  wife's  family.18  Yet  that  he  did  not  hold  it 
at  the  time  of  his  death  is  clear.  If  he  had  then  held 
it,  it  would  not  have  passed  to  his  wife,  and  so  would 
not  have  been  in  her  possession  when  she  died  in 
1479.  The  same  remark  applies  to  the  other  es- 
tates of  Sir  Thomas.  In  other  words,  when  Sir 
Thomas  of  Winwick  and  Newbold  died,  he  was  not 
seized  of  any  real  estate,  either  in  Northamptonshire 
or  elsewhere.  Yet  when  his  wife  died,  nine  years 
later,  she  was  found  in  possession  of  exactly  those 
lands  in  Northamptonshire  and  Warwickshire  which 
Sir  Thomas  had  held  in  his  lifetime  and  of  which 


we  should  have  expected  to  find  him  seized  at  the 
time  of  his  death.  Clearly  Sir  Thomas  had  put  his 
lands  out  of  his  possession  during  his  lifetime,  con- 
veying them  into  his  wife's  hands  by  the  circuitous 
but  familiar  process  of  a  feoffment  to  uses.  The 
device  was  familiar  in  the  case  of  persons  who  might 
fear  confiscation^  That  Sir  Thomas  of  Warwick  re- 
sorted to  it  is  confirmation  of  my  conjecture  that  he 
was  the  same  Thomas  who  was  conspicuous  on  the 
Lancastrian  side  in  the  Wars  of  the  Roses  and  who 
in  1468  was  excepted  by  name  from  the  operation 
of  a  pardon  issued  by  Edward  IV.19 

The  upshot  of  the  discussion  is,  then,  precisely 
this:  There  is,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  only  one  person 
who  fulfills  all  the  conditions  required  of  the  author 
of  the  Morte  d' Arthur,  and  that  person  is  Sir  Thomas 
Malory  of  Winwick,  the  "valens  miles"  who  was 
buried  in  Grey  Friars,  London,  and  whose  epitaph 
has  been  preserved  to  us  by  a  singular  chance. 

To  the  biographical  facts  with  reference  to  Sir 
Thomas  Malory  of  Winwick  and  Newbold  I  can  add 
two  or  three  others,  not,  perhaps,  very  much  to  his 
credit  but  sufficiently  illustrative  of  those  unruly 
times. 

In  a  letter  of  January  8,  1920,  Mr.  Edward  F.  Cobb 
had  the  kindness  to  send  me  an  important  extract 
from  the  De  Banco  Rolls  of  Henry  VI,  1443,  which 
"embodies  a  charge  of  assault  with  violence,  brought 
by  Thomas  Smythe,  a  parishioner  of  Sprottin, 
Northants,  versus  Thomas  Malory,  'Miles',  and  an- 
other." 

(Nor-thants).  Thomas  Smythe  in  propria  per- 
sona sua  optulit  se  quarto  die  versus  Thomam  Mai- 


ory  de  parochia  de  Kirkeby  monachorum  in  Comi- 
tatu  Warw.,  militem,  et  Eustachium  Burneby  de 
Watford  in  Comitatu  predicto,  armigerum,  de  pla- 
cito  quare  vi  et  armis  in  ipsum  Thomam  Smythe  apud 
Sprottone  insultum  fecerunt  et  ipsum  verberaverunt, 
vulneraverunt,  imprisonaverunt,  et  male  tractave- 
runt,  et  bona  et  catalla  sua  ad  valenciam  quadra- 
ginta  librarum  ibidem  inventa  ceperunt  et  asporta- 
verunt,  et  alia  enormia  ad  grave  dampnum  et  con- 
tra pacem  etc  fecerunt.  Et  ipsi  non  venerunt,  et 
preceptum  fuit  Vicecomiti  quod  attachiat  eos,  et 
Vicecomes  modo  mandat  quod  attachiati  sunt  per 
Ricardum  Gey  et  Johannem  ffray.20 

On  July  13,  1451,  Humphrey,  Duke  of  Bucking- 
ham, and  Richard,  Earl  of  Warwick,  had  a  com- 
mission "appointing  them  to  arrest  Thomas  Malory, 
knight,  and  John  Appleby,  his  servant,  and  cause 
them  to  find  mainpernors  who  will  mainprise  for 
them  under  a  sufficient  penalty  that  they  will  do  not 
hurt  to  the  prior  and  convent  of  the  Carthusian 
house  of  Axiholme  or  any  of  the  king's  people,  and 
that  they  will  appear  in  person  before  the  king  and 
council  on  the  quinzaine  of  Michaelmas  next  to 
answer  certain  charges."21  The  Carthusian  house 
here  mentioned  was  the  Priory  in  the  Wood  (Mel- 
wood  Priory)  near  Epworth  in  the  Isle  of  Axholm, 
Lincolnshire,  founded  by  Thomas  Mowbray,  Earl  of 
Nottingham  (afterwards  Duke  of  Norfolk)  in  1395. 
The  rights  of  these  monks  in  Kirby  Monachorum, 
the  parish  in  which  Malory's  estate  of  Newbold 
Revell  was  situated,  may  have  led  to  the  quarrels 
implied  in  this  record. 

On  March  26,  1452,  the  same  Duke  Humphrey, 


with  Sir  Edward  Grey  of  Groby,  and  the  Sheriff  of 
Warwick  and  Leicester,  were  commissioned  "to  ar- 
rest and  bring  before  the  king  and  council  "Thomas 
Malorre,  knight,  to  answer  certain  charges."22 

In  my  supplementary  note  (p.  106)  the  name 
Malory  in  the  form  Maloret  was  cited  from  the  Exe- 
ter Domesday  (by  Professor  Sheldon).23  Any  doubt 
that  this  Maloret  is  the  same  surname  as  Maloree-Mal- 
ore-Malory,  is  now  removed  by  a  document  of  about 
the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century,  in  which  the 
name  of  Anketil  Malore,  the  well-known  Constable 
of  Leicester,  appears  (in  the  ablative)  as  "Ansche- 
tillo  Malloret."24 


NOTES 


1.  My  essay  appeared  in  1897  in  Vol.  V.  of  the  Harvard  Studies 
and  Notes  in  Philology  and  Literature,  pp.  85-106,  and  was  also 
reprinted  separately.  My  identification  of  the  author  of  the  Morte 
with  Sir  Thomas  Malory  of  Winwick  (Northamptonshire)  and 
Newbold  Revell  or  Fenny  Newbold  (Warwickshire)  was  made 
public  on  March  15,  1894,  at  a  meeting  held  at  Columbia  University  in 
honor  of  Friedrich  Diez  (cf.  Modern  Language  Notes,  April,  1914, 
IX.,  253),  It  was  put  on  record  in  a  brief  article  on  Malory  pub- 
lished in  1894  in  Johnson's  Universal  Cyclopedia,  V,  498. 

2.  In  Archceologia,  LVI. ;  also  issued  separately  (London,  1898). 
See  Athenceum,  September  11,  1897,  pp.  353-354;  June  25,  1898, 
p.  827;  July  16,  1898,  p.  98. 

3.  Martin,  p.  3. 

4.  Mr.  Martin  accepted  Professor  Rhys's  erroneous  etymology 
of  Malory.  In  1918  E.  Vettermann  accumulated  a  mass  of  curious 
learning  in  support  of  this  etymology,  but  in  vain  {Die  Balen- 
Dichtungen  und  ikre  Quellen,  pp.  58-60,  Beihefte  zur  Zeitschrift 
fur  romanische  Philologie,  LX).  See  the  review  by  R.  Zenker  in 
Herrig's  Archiv,  1921,  CXLI,  151-152. 

5.  It  is  not,  properly  considered,  a  tradition  at  all,  but  an 
antiquary's  guess  or  fiction. 

6.  See  my  paper,  pp.  87,  90. 

7.  In  a  private  letter  of  November  28,  1898,  Mr.  Martin  wrote : 
"You  will  see  that  I  have  also  discovered  your  Thomas  of  Winwick, 
though  I  think  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  he  was  the  author." 

10 


"You  will  also  see  that  I  have  found  the  entry  in  an  Inq.  p.  m.  of 
another  Thomas,  Miles,  who  died!  March  12,  1471.  My  statement 
on  p.  9  of  my  paper  that  the  date  of  death  of  Sir  Thosi.  of  Winwick 
is  unknown,  is  of  course  wrong:  I  sh'd  have  said  'is  unknown 
from  any  documentary  evidence  I  could  find.'  The  references 
quoted1  in  your  paper  seem  to  fairly  well  establish  1470  as  the 
date  of  his  death :  and  in  this  case  there  must  now  be  at  least 
two  Sir  Thomases  besides  my  Thomas  of  Papworth.  Thus  we 
have  by  no  means  got  to  the  bottom  of  the  matter.  Dugdale,  how- 
ever, is  not  exactly  a  final  authority." 

8.  In  my  paper  I  adopted  the  erroneous  date,  March  14,  1470, 
but  corrected  it  later  to  1471  (see  Maynadier,  The  Arthur  of  the 
English  Poets,  1907,  p.  246). 

9.  Dugdale,  Warwickshire,  ed.  Thomas,  I,  83. 

10.  Styled  in  the  Catalogue  of  1802,  p.  432,  "registrum  eorum,  qui 
sepeliuntur  in  ecclesia  et  capellis  fratrum  Minorum  London." 

1L  I  owe  my  account  of  the  manuscript  to  Mr.  J.  A.  Herbert, 
who  examined  it  for  me  in  1899. 

12.  The  words  printed  in  italics  are  in  red  ink.  The  whole  entry, 
including  the  marginal  "Mallere,"  is  in  the  same  hand — that  of  the 
writer  of  the  whole  article.  The  manuscript  is  edited  by  J.  G. 
Nichols  in  Collectanea  Topographica  et  Genealogica,  V,  274-290, 
385-398;  for  Malory  see  p.  287. 

13.  A  much  larger  error  is  noted  by  Mr.  Martin  (p.  6)  in  a 
case  where  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  person  meant. 

14.  Martin,  p.  8. 

15.  At  the  death  of  Elizabeth  Malory,  widow  of  Sir  Thomas 
of  Winwick  and  Newbold,  her  heir  was  found  to  be  Nicholas, 
son  of  her  son  Robert,  aged'  thirteen  and  more  on  September  30, 
1479  (see  my  paper,  p.  90,  note  2).  Nicholas  must,  therefore, have 
been  born  about  1466.  Robert,  the  son  of  the  Sir  Thomas  of  the 
Northampton  inquisition  was,  then,  about  eighteen  at  the  time  of 
the  birth  of  his  son  Nicholas — not  too  young  for  fatherhood  in 
those  days.  The  statement  that  Robert,  son  of  Sir  Thomas  of 
Winwick  and  Newbold,  died  in  the  lifetime  of  his  father,  is  made 
(without  any  documentary  authority)  by  Dugdale,  I,  81.  It  rests, 
obviously,  on  a  hasty  inference  from  the  succession  of  Nicholas 
to  his  grandmother  (Elizabeth)  in  1479.  Robert  must  have  died 
between  the  death  of  his  father  (Sir  Thomas)  in  1471  and  that 
of  his  mother  (Elizabeth)  in  1479.  Perhaps  he  died  in  the  same 
year  as  his  mother.  On  November  4,  1479,  a  commission  was  issued 
to  Walter  Mauntell,  knight,  and  two  others,  "to  enquire  what  lands 
Robert  Malory,  esquire,  deceased,  tenant  in  chief,  held!  in  the 
counties  of  Northumberland,  Warwick  and  Leicester  and  by  what 
service  and  what  they  are  worth,  and  on  what  day  he  died  and 
who  is  his  heir,  and  to  take  the  lands  into  the  king's  hands" 
(Calendar  of  Patent  Rolls,  1476-1485,  p.  183).  On  Nicholas  Malory 
see  also  Calendar  of  Patent  Rolls,  1494-1509,  pp.  132,  295,  560,  663. 

11 


16.  Inq.  p.  m.  20.  Ed.  IV.,  No.  46  (Martin,  p.  a)  It  is  cited 
by  Dugdale,  I,  83,  and  by  Bridges-Whalley,  Northamptonshire, 
I,"  603. 

17.  Not  1480,  as  I  wrongly  stated  in  my  paper,  p.  90.  "Eliza- 
beth Malory  died  in  1479  and  not  in  1480.  In  three  inquisitions 
the  datesi  of  the  year  agree  though  two  of  them  give  the  day  as 
Sept.  30,  while!  the  third  gives  Oct.  1"  (Mr.  Martin's  letter).  On 
October  10,  1480,  Margaret  Kelem  had  a  grant  "of  the  custody 
of  all  lordships,  manors,  lands,  rents,  reversions,"  etc.  "which 
Elizabeth,  now  deceased,  the  wife  of  Thomas  Malory,  knight,  de- 
ceased, tenant  in  chief,  held  after  his;  death  of  the  inheritance  of 
Nicholas  Malory,  their  kinsman  and  heir,  viz.  son  of  Robert,  their 
son,  during  the  minority  of  the  said  Nicholas  and  his  custody  and 
marriage  without  disparagement"  {Calendar  of  Patent  Rolls, 
1476-1485,  p.  220). 

18.  See  Dugdale,  I,  82,  83;  Bridges-Whalley,  I,  603;  Nichols, 
Leicestershire,  IV,  360;  Martin,  p.  8. 

19.  See  my  paper,  pp.  88,  89. 

20.  De  Banco  731,  Mem.  278  (dorso),  22.  Hen.  VI,  Mich. 
Mr.  Cobb  remarks:  "The  sequel  to  the  above  is: — '(Northants). 
Thomas  Symthe  versus  Thomas  Malory,  etc.  (De  Banco  732. 
Mem.  414.  22.  Hen.  vi.  Hil.).'  This  is  the  last  notice,  and  as 
Sir  Thomas  Malory  was  M.  P.  for  Warwickshire,  it  may  be  sup- 
posed the  case  was  settled  out  of  court,  before  his  election  in  1445." 

21.  Calendar  of  Patent  Rolls,  1446-1452,  p.  476.  On  the 
Carthusian  priory  in  Axholm  see  Dugdale,  Monasticon,  VI,  i, 
25-29 ;  Warwickshire,  I,  76-77 ;  Calendar  of  Patent  Rolls,  1391-1396, 
p.  607;  1461-1467,  p.  155. 

22.  Calendar  of  Patent  Rolls,  1452-1461,  p.  61. 

23.  I  take  this  opportunity  to  correct  a  slip  of  the  pen  in  the 
note  on  p.  106.  The  Gaufridus  Maloret  of  Domesday  held  prop- 
erty in!  Dorsetshire,  not  Devonshire^ 

24.  This  is  a  charter  of  Robert,  Earl  of  Leicester,  allowing 
a  certain  gift  made  to  the  Abbey  of  Lire  in  Normandy1  (Calendar 
of  Documents  preserved  in  France,  illustrative  of  the  History  of 
Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  ed.  by  J.  Horace  Round,  No.  410,  I,  136, 
from  the  original  in  the  Archives  of  the  Eure  in  Upper  Normandy). 
The  document  is  undated,  but  must  be  a  charter  of  Robert  le  Bossu, 
born  1104,  succeeded  1118,  died  1168;  compare  the  witnesses  with 
those  to  Nos.  409  and  1062,  and  observe  that  Ernald  de  Bosco 
(mentioned  as  consenting  in  No.  410)  was  Constable  of  Robert 
le  Bossu  (see  Dugdale,  Monasticon  Anglicanum,  newed.,  VI,  ii,  1093). 
In  a  charter  of  Robert  [Blanch-mains],  son  of  this  earl,  the  same 
witness's  name  is  spelled  "Ainketillo  Mallore"  (Monasticon  VI, 
ii,  1095,  No.  28).  Richard  Mallore  is  mentioned!  in  another  charter 
of  Robert  le  Bossu  (Calendar  of  Documents,  No.  1062,  I,  376-7, 
between  1155  and  1159. 

12 


*: s 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 
J(  or  to  the 

LC        NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
—       University  of  California 
4         Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 


ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4 
days  prior  to  due  date. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 
S5MTON1LL 


Al 

'd- 
R 


M&K  0  1  2000 


U.  C.  BkHKELEY 


CIF 


flUbe  Pf 


12,000(11/95) 


YD  49! If 


GENERAL  LIBRARY  -  U.C.  BERKELEY 


BDOOflbmiS 


1*89895 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


•.   :i% 


**■ 


;;,.;■  '?;■: 


